1/3 of a stop ain't all That much you're painting it to be. Barrely noticeable. Specially given the horrible CA issues at f1.2 and slow af which makes me wish canon would have decent 1.4 versions instead (cheaper and lighter too). If fps was an issue, I'd get a D700 which does 8fps for less than 1900 dollars used or go D4. You're just greatly exaggerating the pluses of a couple of lenses.
I wasn't listing the 50 and 85 because they are faster. They both posses a certain quality that is a combination of color rendition, contrast and oof quality that personally I don't find in any of the alternatives. That is why I purchased them in the first place and certainly I don't find the D800 offering anything substantial enough to warrant using lesser offerings instead.
Also, my post was a personal observation based on what I usually shoot but there are also other segments in which Canon offers better lenses. Super teles and tilt shifts on the wide end for example.
I agree canon has a better selection of telephotos (which aren't of my concern), but I see nikon has all the essentials covered which tend to the the fast 2.8 and f4 versions up to 600mm. T/S are very specialized and the only one I see nikon lacking for now is the 17mm. Again, a very specialty item which I wouldn't buy even from canon. So yes, there are particular models on both sides which are unique in both character and purpose, but it is a far cry from 10 years ago when nikon literally had nothing that was decades old and a severe lack of USM primes. Luckly for me, and I realize others may not share this, but nikon's lineup has same or equivalent versions of everything I need, and I even get to try that 14-24 everybody raves about
Anyways, I've placed my D800 order. Now the waiting begins. I won't get rid of my canon gear until I have a few weeks to play with the D800. But given all the glowing reviews, I suspect this is it for me and canon, at least until the next generation arrives.