Upload & Sell: Off
I don't want to pick apart Wayne's excellent images, but the ihop guy is at ISO800, which kills much of the fine detail and adds a lot of high ISO artifacts. Personally, I see the image as having excellent edge (macro) contrast but a notable absence of micro-contrast in tonal gradations. Most lenses can produce this kind of look. I see no reason why the N50 is superior here.
In the flower shot, again, excellent pic, but my monitor is displaying it as having more painterly qualities (Philber mentions Leica, and maybe I would too). Maybe it's the post processing, which is beautiful in its own right, but not quite what I would call Zeiss punch. As a comparison, Jordan Steele's (I think) C/Y 85/2.8 of the flower patch screams Zeiss punch. That's the look I'm speaking of, and I don't see N lenses producing that.
I don't want to bash N lenses, but am I out in left field thinking that Zeiss N is visually different than Zeiss C/Y or ZF?