kartoon

Just for the record, I ended up with the 1.4, and I really don't regret it. What a wonderful lens this is. And I really love shooting this wide open. For me the extra stop was the most important reason. But I also like the fact that it's optically corrected and don't rely on heavy digitally correction. I don't doubt for one second that the f2 is a amazing lens as well. But for me the so called magic of the 1.4 won me over

Thanks a lot when it comes to the f2 being cheaper, I can get both lenses for about the same if buying used. So price is no criteria. I think I´ll go for the 1.4. The ekstra stop is important because I will miss this with my other lens being the 16-55 2.8. WR is not important for the same reason. I can remember "the magic" mentioned several times from the short time I had this lens. It had something special ...
Thanks a lot for all good advice and sharing of experience with both lenses!

As said in other places: 
 
The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 
 
If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.
 
The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 
 
A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 
 
I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 
 
My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.
 
The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

I don't understand why some are sayng the 35 1.4 is soft, etc.  I've owned the 1.4 since February 2013 and use it all the time.  Is it a bit soft in the corners, yeah, up to F4-5.6.  But who cares when it's wide open?  That's what I'm lookinng for.  sharp center...
I'm very happy with my 35 1.4  

I think it's always personal opinion, and often depends on image type you are taking. Just spend 30 days with single lens only to understand it's potential.
 
I was taking portraits and general pictures with Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 on X-T1 for about month. Then I made few shots with XF 35mm 1.4 on F1.4. Comparing to Voigtlander results this lens is just ridiculously sharp wide open - it catches every skin pore. It took few days for me to get used again to that sharpness level : )
 
BTW, just make sure your NR is set to -2 to judge real sharpness of the lens. Fuji NR is a bit aggressive there.
 
I'd recommend to choose 35mm f2 if you need faster focus, smaller size, and probably extra weather/dust protection.
But if you like DOF of 1.4, take 35mm 1.4 then, it's one of the best Fuji lens, a real jem, and it's perfectly usable on that F1.4.

The 1.4 is definitely not a bad choice, it's a great choice. But the f/2.0 gets so much praise because it has almost the same image quality, is smaller, faster and weather resistant. The f/1.4 is faster though (faster in aperture) and the image quality is beautiful. Since you already have a WR kit (with the 16-55) you could decide it's not that important and go for the extra stop. The only really pocketable lens is the 27mm f/2.8 though, but that's not as fast.