Having owned and used the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 for years in all sorts of conditions, including at live venues where lighting was all over the place and flare just happens, I jumped at the chance to possibly fill the gap I have between my Nikkor 105 f/2.5 and my Nikkor ED 180 f/2.8 with either the Nikkor 135 f/2.8 or 135 f/2.
I also tried another combination by borrowing the TC-14A and adding it to my 85 f/1.4 to make it an almost 120mm focal length with an aperture f/1.8 which really was a nice combination. This was a serious performer and one I really would have pursued, finding an affordable TC-14A though was another problem.
At the same time I had the use of the Nikkor 135 f/2 Ai-S, I borrowed from him the TC-14A. The 135 f/2 had one clear advantage over my 85 f/1.4 coupled with the TC-14A, it had a built in lens hood, which to me was/is a very handy bonus.
The 135 f/2 is a pretty neat lens, it really is working hard at f/2 and resolution is certainly better down one stop, but in a live venue and sometimes with direct light into the lens, it worked as good as pretty much anything else of that era.
I couldnt find any Nikkor 135 f/2 lens at anything other than astronomical prices, so I jumped when a pristine example of the Nikkor 135 f/2.8 turned up, I bought that and have been happy ever since.
Conclusions with regard to Nikkor lenses. The 85 f/1.4 and 180 ED f/2.8 have the same look, in that they have a slightly higher inherent contrast compared to my 105 f/2.5 and 135 f/2.8. This inherent contrast is not a good thing, nor is it a bad thing, it just is.
When Zeiss released their manual focus 85mm f1.4 lens, I was able to run a roll off at the camera expo it was being displayed at. I turned up with two F3 bodies loaded with film and two tripods. I also had my Nikkor 85 f/1.4 lens with me. With two tripod mounted F3 bodies one with the Zeiss lens and one with the Nikkor lens attached, I and the person flogging the Zeiss lens took shots side by side.
The way I was able to swing the deal was to allow them to run two rolls of E6 film through both cameras, which they would keep, process and use, as a comparative test. As this was the lens they were trying to sell against, it was something they couldnt resist.
My negatives showed that there was a difference between both lenses, sort of the same difference between the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 and 135 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 and ED 180 f2.8. In other words an incremental, and I do mean incremental difference. I never got to see the E6 results, I was never given a reason, but I assume the differences between the 85 Nikkor and 85 Zeiss were not quite as large as they may have liked or assumed.
One would assume that the current lens manufacturing and coating technology available today would mean that the Zeiss 135 f/2, would probably have a slightly more than incremental difference over the Nikkor built around 25 years or more ago.
Interestingly, I can purchase the Zeiss lens in Melbourne Australia for approximately the same price you have nominated in USD, also it is in stock.
If you were continuing on with manual focus camera bodies exclusively, I would suggest the auto focus Nikkor may be the better buy. For ultimate quality and an after-market lens that focuses in the same direction as Nikkor lenses, the manual focus Zeiss may be the better buy.
Class glass and impressive speed has never been a cheap thing, especially when combined. In the past few days I have been enlarging over 50 portrait negatives, all shot with my Nikkor 85 f/1.4. The cost of that lens when I purchased it hurt, but the prints I have been producing in the last 24 years I have owned it are priceless.
When the recipients of those prints see them displayed for their initial viewing, the approving murmurs, sometimes accompanied with a little wow thrown in, make it all worthwhile.
Good luck in your quest.
Mick.
