Better than the Nikkor AF-S (and much cheaper)

As an avid user of high-intensity fixed focal lengths I had in moderate WW range have the Nikkor 35 / 1.4 Ai and the 35 / 1.4 AF-S. In the F3, the Ai-version was my favorite lens in addition to the 105 / 2.5. At f / 5.6 abnormal sharp, at open aperture you had to take great compromising contrast in purchasing. How happy I was when the 35 / 1.4 AF-S was announced, and bought it blind. The initial enthusiasm gave way after a couple of months: at full aperture visibly worse than the Zeiss Distagon. And especially ugly longitudinal chromatic aberration. And crass Coma.

Then came the Sigma, and it has been praised to the skies. My previous sigma experiences were almost all disappointment (except for the 180 / 2.8 APO Macro). But at the relatively low price you could not do a lot wrong. So I let me three copies of different dealers come. One fell through immediately, it had a bad centering. The other two were okay. No not OK, that is excellent. At least as good as the Zeiss Distagon, if not better. And very well-corrected longitudinal chromatic aberration. Open impeccable contrast and excellent resolution throughout almost the entire image circle, slightly soft only in the extreme corners, which is absolutely forgivable. The 35 / 1.4 AF-S was then sunk in the bay (the Ai-version I still have). It feels the Sigma on the D700 finally a bit like how the Ai 35s on F3.

Focusing:
Sure, a 1,4er is not easy to focus at maximum aperture. And unlike rangefinder cameras of phase autofocus in DSLRs has the more difficult, the shorter the focal length (then are the sharpness levels on the image side closer together). And that the Sigma something bitchy than a lens from the original manufacturer, should be clear. Finally, know the Sigma-engineers the respective AF only from the reverse engineering. Anyone who complains here on front or back focus has, probably for the first time to deal with high-aperture lenses. But that is certainly to get a grip. Either you send DSLR and Lens to Sigma and Sigma-service calibrates the optics to the individual camera. Or do you do that with the USB pod itself (which is really very good).
Who whines still, should times the exact functioning of a phase AF watch, the phase AF measures with effective f / 5.6 and it has yet to match at f / 1.4. To me it is always a mystery why it works at all so well. How sensitive is the whole, one can see for example the Nikkor 85 / 1.4 AF-D: The optics has also fairly strong longitudinal chromatic aberration (as well as the AF-S!), And this has the consequence that the lens visible outdoors under a cloudy sky differently focused as indoors in artificial light.

Sharpness / Contrast:
Excellent. Fully usable even at maximum aperture. For me personally it is still ahead of the Distagon and before Nikkor anyway. Diverse (measuring) tests confirm this, whether one looks at DxO, with Lens-Tip or dpreview. Approximately on Distagon level or better.

Color error:
Excellent corrected. Both longitudinal and transverse flaws scarce. Much better than the Nikkor AF-S.

Distortion:
Exists but only purely spherical, so well corrected, and not particularly strong. Seems to be, regardless of the focus.

Coma:
Lightweight Coma in the corners at full aperture. But much better than the Nikkor AF-S and an idea better than the Distagon.

Bokeh:
For the focal length extremely well, but the Nikkor AF-S is also very good. Only the direct transition from sharpness to blur **** verk the Nikkor totally depending on the subject because of the longitudinal chromatic aberration. The Sigma is great even in critical subjects.

Processing:
Extremely well. Metal class. Without bajonettseitigem seal. Better is the Zeiss.

tl; dr

Class lens, super processed, optically outstanding, at least on Zeiss Distagon level, rather over it. And all this at a very fair price.