[davidmanze]

Roadmaps are about what is to come, Dave. Not about what is there. Hence the posts. Range, vs. roadmap.

   Thanks for your correction of the English language BC .... I'm sure I needed to be explained that !!

 BTW. There was no need to write your post in four sentences BC ... where one would have sufficed!  

Some learnt to use the dots as end of a sentence. Others.... to produce... cliffhangers... and the more of it... the silly they look. 

Back to the roadmap. No, the 58/0.95 doesn't count, it's far out of the range of "affordable" and the only lens which has no AF, so no, in my book this bloody "show-off"-crap* doesn't count much more than a waste of R&D resources. With this lens Nikon admits they are not capable to AF such a glass and leave all the lack of success with proper focus to the idiots willing to pay 8 grand. It's the same wow-thing like all these Viltrox, Voigtländers, Artisans, Laowas which are good optics but can't even manage an electronic aperture, not to mention the lack of EXIF in most cases.

*Canon's 28-70/2.0 is also a show-off lens, but it delivers. And can be used with AF, with EXIF.

The f/1.8 primes are the new f/1.4, easily in the price range of excellent f/1.4 Sigma primes, just not delivering the same smooth bokeh. Therefore Nikon roadmap still sucks, too many 50s, no 105/1.4, the Micro Nikkors ages away.

I want to see the lenses Nikon claimed to make the new mount for. So far, I am disappointed - just not enough to move on to Sony, but who knows, one day the decision just might be "do I want to continue supporting a super conservative manufacturer who ignores customers all the time, promises a lot and delivers poorly?" - see the shortcoming of the 58/0.95, the "production problems" with the only 70-200 they managed to develop in all these years (again, this is a bread&butter lens and needed by much more photogs than the 58).

Was it necessary to have two 24-70 and no 24-105 and still (!!!) no 70-200?

   
 At first I thought the lens was a false step, but having seen images from it, I've completely gone the other way ....... it has truly spectacular rendering ...... this lens lives a world of it's own!
  We both have spent money on glass over the years JoJu ...... I know I've wasted plenty of money on silly lenses ...... minimal upgrades, no doubt you have done the same ...... probably more than I. 
The question is: Have we wasted eight grand, the price of this Noct?  I bet the answer is YES!
  The inevitable incremental optical improvements we have so called invested in, have turned into lost money when going through the next upgrade, maybe not just for optical quality but for brand changes.
  
  So rather like the the Noct, I spent a silly amount of money on the lens that I actually "wanted" ..... after a series of money wasting faux pas that ended up costing me lots more than going the direct route!
 The question is, is Canon's route nearer to what you want to end up owning? ......
Nikon's offerings are "tide you over" optics that are sufficient for most folk as long as they are not aspiring to the upper echelons ..... but for those wanting more, it is another round of lost money spent while they're waiting .....
 With your tastes in top flight bright glass I would imagine Canon would be your baby ...... but one timely move from Sigma and the whole thing could turn around at a stroke!

 Let's hope Sigma step up to the plate!