My first reaction to the images was wow, WTF, the Canon 35/1.5??? That lens has had very mixed reviews as someone else pointed out, but your sample at least is stellar. You can see its not terribly flare resistant to put it mildly by the lightbulb crops but in all the other images it does fine.
My reactions generally are much much more guided by the sharpness / flare comparisons than the bokeh. Bokeh is very nice but doesn't on the whole interest me a whole lot and it has to be very bad -- mythic bad -- for me to hold it against a lens.
The Summilux is of course the best of the lot. And why wou'dn't it be.
But, for other surprises: I thought the CV 35/2.5's, both of them, looked as good as the Summaron 2.8 or close to it, and one hears such raves about that lens. The CV Ulton 35/1.7 looked excellent as well. I had -- until an unfortunate incident in a taxi -- the Summicron 40 and know how good it is so I'm not surprised to see it outperforming what are thought to be its betters. I, unlike some here, was not impressed with the Nokton 40s in any of the comparisons.
And, no has said a word, but the highly thought of Biogon 35/2 didn't do very well, I thought -- though it's clearly excellent on the flare issue.
So the big winners to my eyes were, first, the Canon 35/1.5, next the three CV's in no particular order, and the Rokkor/Summicron 40s. Disappointing were the 35 Biogon and, to me, the Noktons. The Canon 35/1.8, the Summaron 35/2.8, and the 35 Summicrons were kind of 'as expected' or not quite as good as expected, but only by a hair.
