Upload & Sell: On
Well I've been sniffing the Kool-Aid and I'm moving into Zeiss territory soon, poor enough to only afford one lens and for me, at least, it'll be the 35/2.
I've subscibed to http://diglloyd.com/, I don't work for him, and I'll suggest if you're interested in Zeiss comparisons (and other aspects of photography), it's already well-worth the price I paid (I got a triple bundle pack). It's chock full of information.
Not to steal from Lloyd's work, but from what I've read and the ton of photos and examples and comparisons he does, I think the 35/2 is for me.
1) I'm not a fan of the FC of the 35 f/1.4 because I plan to use 35 for landscapes.
2) I'm not a fan of the weight / size, which is a consideration for me (which is why I just sold my 1d3, 28-70 and 100-400...my camera bag was way too heavy).
3) I can actually afford the 35/2
No doubt if your style of photography matches what the 35/1.4 puts out, it might be a better choice. Things like close-focus portraits, "3d" objects, etc. etc. The usual stuff. CA control is very nice on the 35/1.4
For me, though, I do some of that and some landscape stuff, and the 35/2 seemed to fare better overall in those aspects.
Again, this is from zero experience but comparing the two rather thoroughly.