I know that Nikon's Thousand and One Nights site has an article about the 35 1.4 AIS - its development, and imaging characteristics. Ken Rockwell has also reviewed this lens and the 35 f/2. Bjorn Rorslett has reviews of many, many Nikon lenses and their variations.
Basically I've owned the 35 1.4, 35 2, and 35 2.8. They all have barrel distortion compared to say a Leica Summaron which has none. The 35 1.4 is soft with low contrast, wide open. Yet, this is actually a good thing in the contrasty low light situations, I've found. It has CRC to assist with close focusing, but it's not a macro lens. It's significant curvature of field makes it hard to keep a flat piece of paper in focus.
Stopped down to f/2.8 - 5.6, it is really sharp with very high resolution (see Bjorn Rorslett). This is the only 35 in Nikon that I still own.
I found the 35 2 to be a good lens. Rockwell seems to hate it. I can't remember his specific reason for hating it. I got rid of it when I got the 1.4, just because I like the quirks of the 1.4!
I personally hated the 35 2.8. That specification may make a great Summaron, but it's lousy in the Nikon SLR realm. It's dark and hard to focus. It's also fuzzy at all apertures (my copy).
These are all AIS lenses. I don't have much experience with Nikon's AF lenses - except for the Macro lenses, of which I have two. They are outstanding (60 2.8 AF, and 70-180 Micro Nikkor 4.5-5.6 the only true zoom Nikkor macro lens)