Sure, but first a public service announcement. Don't use those files to judge sharpness at wide open settings. When I made the shots yesterday, the light was fading and I was in a bit of a hurry. I relied on autofocus. Lazy... bad... and it resulted in the RX images to be -ever so slightly- soft focused. You can only see it at 2:1 or above, but it's quite profound and makes the lens look terrible when compared to the FE35/2.8. You can use the files to compare the DR and color, but not a whole lot more.
Apologies to all to downloaded these files. I went out this morning and repeated the tests, this time with a full range of F stops. If anyone would like to see these (much improved focus) shots, I will be more than happy to make the RAW files available.
Anyway, back to "bottom line":
Sharpness - It's a bit hard to compare, as it sure seems the "smoothness" Guy refers to is a bit more pronounced with the RX. Shot wide open, the FE35 is a tad sharper, but then that would be f/2.8 vs. f/2.0. Comparing f/2.8, I give the edge to the RX. By F8, the two are too close to call. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the FE35/2.8 is an excellent lens for its size/cost.
Everything else - Dynamic range, tonal range, color rendition, the nebulous "pop" - RX wins easily. The RX has much more "presence", almost a 3d quality. It's plain to see in flat lighting and would be more so in contrasty situations. It makes a boring image seem much more interesting and engaging.
A couple of other observations - I shot the RX wide open at the three LPF settings. At 3:1, I could barely discern a difference. I suspect if I'd use a focus chart, it might be more apparent. But for real life photography, it's a non-issue.
Also, the RX's sweet spot is f/5.6 - f/8. At f/11, things start getting a bit soft. The same goes for the FE35.