I wonder how my father ever got a photo of me ... ;-)
Regarding 23/35/50 quality, I think there is general consensus that the quality hierarchy is 50 > 23 > 35. The 50 is really, really good and for me a total alternative to the 56 if you don't need f/1.2 for something, it also has much more consistent performance, meaning it's great wide open, while the 56 is soft and low contrast up to f/2 to f/2.8 and close focus distances. The 23 is really a 21mm lens, the extrem corners can be pretty soft, but it's a great lightweight lens which has a better resolving power than the 1.4 version – and it is much smaller. The 35 isn't properly optically corrected, so the corners never get as good as a good 35/1.4 even though it might be slightly better at f/2.
Having owned the f/2 trilogy I compared them quite a bit with the 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2. Personally I consider the 23/2 and 50/2 good alternatives to their faster, larger, heavier siblings, but the 35 just doesn't hold up to the same standard.
Now, let me get this straight out: this is comparing on a very high level, they are all very, very good lenses and are all (except the 35/2) in the same league as the Canon L glass I own (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, some older zooms) and are generally more affordable. The one thing the Canon glass gives is nicer OoF rendering due to the same or higher speed and the larger sensor at the cost of being generally twice the weight or even worse (body + lens).
You can't go wrong with either of these lenses, but I really believe people need to stop thinking the 35/1.4 or 18/2 are slow focusing – most of this is because of comparisons drawn to experience with X-Pro1, X-E1 or even X-T1 and X-E2 class cameras with old firmware, which were all absolutely terrible in focusing speed. Make comparisons on the same modern body and you'd be surprised. Might you be able to measure a difference? Sure. Is it relevant in real life? Nope. It's like comparing the 0-60 times and saying a 3.2s run is soooo much faster than a 3.4s run, when in real life it's irrelevant.