Is the 55mm really that good? (part 1)

Before getting the SonyA7 and a prime 55mm I read a few reviews on the web of the lens and every tester seems to be impressed by the glass. DXO Mark claims its the best AF lens they have ever tested, a lens thats only rivaled by the Otus 55mm.
The 55mm 1.8 is not small, in fact for a 1.8 lens it´s huge. And it´s not chap. Again, for a normal 1.8 lens its very expensive. Only Leica thinks its OK to charge more for a slow 50mm lens.
But when shooting with the lens I realized, it´s worth the money. The contrast and the crispiness is absolutely first class. What I see when I shot portraits reminds me of when I had a chance to briefly test the already legendary Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 on my Nikon D600. This is obviously first class glass.

Just for fun I did a small test shot this morning, comparing the Sony A7 and Zeiss 55mm with my Sigma 50mm 1.4 on my D600. The cameras are comparable, both are 24 megapixel and have modern and similar sensors. (Yes, they are not 36 megapixel, but thats i really something will never ever notice since I don´t do 50 inch prints.)
Also I chose the Sigma in stead of my Nikon 50mm, since the Sigma is a much more ambitious lens than Nikons older 50mm. (The new 58mm 1.4 is another story.)

Have a look for yourself and see what you think.

 In case you wonder, The pictures are first Sigma then Sony:)

None of the pictures have been edited, just concerted from RAW. The Sigma is in my opinion a bit smoother. The Nikon/Sigma also produces a bit lighter photos. The Sony would probably need a bit editing in Photoshop, but the end result is sharper, crispier and more contrasty.By far!