The lens was the plastic fantastic, my $90 50 1.8D, hand held at 1/125, at 5.6. Its the only AF Nikon 50mm I have. It is light weight, sharp, contrasty, but not much magic. My 50 1.4Ai from 1975 (this belonged to my mother who was a PJ) is not as sharp but looks better.
For scanning B&W I use the V750 with the Better Scan variable holder. I really like the B&W output. I scan at 6400ppi then downsize in PS. I would gues sreal resolution is in the 2400 range, maybe less. It resolves grain, which is where I want my scans to be. The dedicated MF scanners I've used resolve smaller grain and do so with more acuity thatn the Epson with the BetterScan holders, but they end up being similar in sharpness at print sizes. I've been scanning for YEARS but am by no measure a scanning expert. I know what it takes to get the best scans out of film, and I know what is in a negative and the quality that can come out of one. I've had an Imacon 343, 646, Nikon 9000, and Microtek 120tf. I wish I still had the Imacon 646. My current thinking goes something like this: for editorial publications and prints up to 17" on the short side, the Epson does an admirable job with the BetterScan holders. Higher quality is available from the Epson, but requires wet mounting, which I'm not willing to do. When I need a higher quality scan I take the neg to a service bureau that does lots of work for ad agencies, wher ethey drum scan on a Tango. This process works well. I may or may not get the new Plustek when it is finally available, it really depends on the quality and more importantly, the convenience. I'm sure it will be better than the V750 with the BetterScan holders, but the quality I get is fine from the V750, and is a fairly painless (for scanning) process. If the Plustek is not a pain to use, and produces better files, I will replace the Epson.
The Nikon 9000 was a pain. Capable of great quality, but the MF holders are not great. The Microtek was awesome, was easier to use, but slower. No ICE, but I hardly ever used ICE anyway (still don't with the Epson). When the stars aligned the Microtek was almost as good as the Nikon, but the Nikon lens was better at the margins. The Imacons were slightly easier to use with the magnetic holders, and allowed better results with less effort. Not worth the price of an X1 unless you are fully commited to film.
Fred G. has some nice scans posted with the V750, I believe they were wet mounted.
The IR issue is great surprise, good to know.
Regarding moiré, I guess we have been warned. The D800 has OLP filtering while the D800E has some engineering work done to remove the effect of the OLP filter. But rejoice, my understanding is that moiré actually means that your lens outresolves the sensor. So when you see moiré you know having exact focus and good microcontrast at pixel level. So the moiré actually shows that your technique is good!