The new lens is a lot better but also a lot more expensive. On the other hand, looking at some online reviews, this lens isn't very sharp wide open which is the only reason I would get it for. Was kind of tempted, but I think I'll skip. Thanks for the heads up though OP.
This lens is just as sharp in the center wide open as any other 50mm lens for the Nikon. It doesn't have very even border performance, but neither does the Zeiss, for that matter. And you should tell these people that it "isn't very sharp wide open," as much like the Roadrunner, they seem to be disobeying the laws of physics, by virtue of not knowing any better:
Or maybe they just realize that at f/1.4, when you're obviously going for as little depth of field as possible anyway, who cares what the borders look like when they aren't even supposed to be in focus for your shot? Plus, the bokeh beats the pants off of any of Nikon's comparable offerings.
I am just better off getting the 35mm 1.8 by Nikon? How often will I need the extra aperture, or the extra 5mm? It's cheaper, and it seems Nikon lenses will give slightly better image quality.
You mean the extra 15mm? They're completely different lenses. One is a normal lens on your camera, the other is a short portrait lens. You need both, because one complements the other, not replaces it.