I use the AIS 24/2.0 and it is better than expected at the edges. On a 43x31 sensor only the extreme corners suffer from vignetting. So you do have to crop some of the edges. But don't forget, a 24 meant for 24x36 is something like the equivalent of a 20 on 43x31.
The Zeiss lenses do cover the complete 43x31 and have enormous resolution capabilities. They not only excel wide open but especially around 5,6 to 11 you are rewarded with excellent quality. Details are suddenly visible that would have been gone using other lenses.
Actually the Nikon 28/3.5 Shift is not that bad, albeit not excellent. I had to use it a couple of days ago and the thing wasn't half as bad as I remembered. It doesn't distort a lot but is only sharp in the range f8 to f11.
The Canon 24 is a POS, with a lot of distortion. I would not touch it with a 10ft pole.
The 85PC is very very nice but I currently have an issue with it with a weird hotspot and lightring.
I use the Kapturegroup Truewide. This has a copal3 attached to it. The connector towards the Nikon F-Mount is made by placing a PK11 macro ring inside the Copal3 and fix that with 4 4-40 Nylon tipped 0,05" Hex Allen bolts.
They probably can make something custom if you ask them. I found them very helpful and friendly.
The Sigma would be nice to try eventually as well as would be the AIS 15/3.5 rectilinear. Do expect weird things when trying stuff like this.
I have a 35/2.0 which covers the sensor size but I have never seen distortion like that. It is like the image is wrapped around a ball or something.
I am currently waiting for the new Zeis 25/2.0 and 35/2.0. If they have the same sort of image circle and performance as the 50 and 85 I will be very very happy.
Lenses that are on my list of testing: the Schneider 28 shift (because many tell me this is way better than the Nikon version), the 15/3,5, the 20/4.0, the 28/2.0 (allegedly one of the sharpest Nikon lenses) and naturaly the 17-35 (which is not a G-version).
Next to that I am testing the Hassie V lenses against these to see what the differences are.
That is one of the advantages of having a sensor that you can put on more than one machine. Sofar I have been less than impressed with the Hassie lenses. I know not to expect that much of the 150/4.0 Sonnar but sofar the CFi 100/3.5 isn't that fantastic either (in its defense, I have not yet had the opportunity to really put it to the test).