Not interested, but X-T30 shows the way.

, lashes, brows reveal poor detail, sort of a fused or smeared look.

What I mean is the hair goes with jaggies/pixelation. It's pretty much capturing to the resolution. When a lens is not as sharp, you see it but it is smoother. Which can also be a good thing but that's besides the point.

But perhaps let me know you how big proportionally the eye is in size to the photo and compare to the shot of the girl you shot.

Here's how that eye fits in proportion to the photo, so it should be no wonder you see red line sin the eye in yours. I just saw another shot I took with my X-e3 with the eye being bigger in the shot and effectively you can see a bit of red lines.

As for the review sites of lenses- they warn you shouldn't compare across systems just like that. I think lens-tip themselves explains too. But anyhow, all I can say is I do find by experience the XF35 F2.0 sharper than the Panasonic wide open. The Panasonic becomes pretty good once you stop down.

And the original PL 25 mm F1.4 m43rds is better than both.

And honestly I am sorry, but I see your eye sample that you pointed out of the girl in the bath pretty soft, with some CA's even on the specular part o the eye to light.

Thank you for posting the shots, I think at this point I am going to agree to differ, but if you ever get a chance to try for yourself if you are curious go for it. Also if you ever get hold of the Panny Leica 4/3rds original, check it out. It's kinda big but it's great.

- Ricardo

Thing is, if you use the Fuji f2 lenses close up to the subject that is when their performance really collapses.

I noticed that picture was at iso 400 and a super high shutter speed  - easily done with that nonsense fake film ISO dial