Similar observations. While, somehow on the contrary, I would like to minimize the use of primes because of their overall weight is more than the weight of a few zooms, I am still attracted towards the higher degree of optical perfection primes promise. So, as an N1 user, I can hardly wait for the 1.4/85 and for any future developments, like a 2.8/21, 1.4/35, 2.8/135 and of course longer tele-lenses, like a 2.8/300... I think I will have the courage to carry all that glass on a long tour, for the pleasure of optical perfection.
I agree with you - at least regarding the new N varios - that their MTFs look better at most focal lengths than the MTFs of the good old MM primes. The old C/Y-mount lenses were designed quite long time ago, and I suspect - and hope - that the reason for the apparent improvement in the MTF charts is that Zeiss has improved its design methods and manufacturing technology during the recent decades. Possible, that they are now capable of designing and building zooms that often outperform primes that were designed e.g. 30 years ago. I am curious to see how the MTF curves of their N-zooms will compare to new N-primes... I sincerely doubt that the core reason behind the difference is not a change in technology but a "development" in marketing communications approach.... I trust CZ is a fair player.
By the way, I do not really like their method of measuring at full aperture and at closed down by 2-stops. Apart from the wide open position I would be interested in the maximum performance of a lens, which I expect at f8. Just like the guys at photodo.com do it. Oh yes, and I would like to see some new results from their lab. They seem to be on a long-long holiday...
And of course, the MTF charts are a good measure, at least I would prefer lenses only above a certain MTF performance. But I think most people would agree that, apart from any numerical measurement results, there is something you can only feel. And that is absolutely subjective.