First of all â€” good job on both reviews â€” any complaints I have below are about a matter of emphasis. The photographs in the reviews tell the story perfectly well, so anyone who just cares about whether a lens is "recommended" or "highly recommended" is simply suffering a self-inflicted wound.
I find it a little inconsistent that you've got shots of white lights on a black background (with a faint green tinge) in the Nikon 35mm review (which clearly shows subtle and undesirable qualities of the Nikon lens's bokeh -- thanks, this is useful stuff) but the Fujifilm shows no such shot, despite that lens also â€” clearly from almost every shot you display â€” having nervous bokeh. I looked in vain for any comment on the not-quite-perfect bokeh of the 56mm (which is, after all, a portrait lens first and foremost) while there's a huge amount of emphasis on it in the Nikon (which is a wide-normal).
The upshot, again, is that your photos do a great job of showing the strengths and weaknesses of the two lenses. Bravo. But I can't help but see a bit of "tilt" being applied in how the lenses are discussed and summed up. And I'd have to say that having mediocre bokeh is a FAR bigger problem for the 56mm than for the 35mm. (And in fact the problems with the 56mm's bokeh show up, for example in the guitar picture, at normal viewing size, whereas the green fringing problem in the Nikon really requires pixel-peeping to notice. The 35mm's bokeh looks just fine â€” "creamy" even â€” in most of the shots.)