Hi, Mike. Google "35mm lens test reports" and you'll probably get what you need.

Sorry for the lecture. I am always writing for the noobs who read this as an archive, as much as I was commenting to you. I had no quick way to know your experience level.

I guess your question got me on the soap box because so many here are fixated on the gear, rather than the technique or the creative spark. It's easy for them to focus on aspects of their work that matter less than having a point and the knowledge of how to state it.

Hardware is a means to an end, not the end. To disagree with Marshall McLuhan, "The medium IS NOT the message." The MESSAGE is the message (or payload).
Great gear is nice to have, eases the way, enhances technical quality at the margins... so long as it doesn't get in the way.

Yet, as evidenced by the presence of lots of mediocre images made with high end equipment, many photographers buy high end gear, hoping it will substitute for high end knowledge and real experience.

All that said, I'd look at the Sigma ART lenses, Sony mount Zeiss lenses, and the high end Canon/Nikon offerings. If you want character, look at Leica glass.

Mikeroetex wrote concerning my comments on the ratings by www.dxomark.com :
"Doesn't the score also depend on the camera you pair it with?"

That is exactly true. I wrote dxomark an email about this one time and to my surprise they responded.
The number in the "main" list is the highest number that lens scored. The rating will vary a bit depending on the camera body the lens is tested on.
The original questioner, who is in pursuit of ultimate perfection, stated that he was willing to buy whatever body he had to to go with the lens.
If he carries out this premise with other lenses he could end up with a lot of lens/body combinations!

Thanks for all your comments including the deep philosophy. (Yes really)

I probably misstated my original complaint of missing some pop. I'm getting very very very good images from the 35 1.4, but to my critical eye they still don't quite measure up to what I get from my 85 or 50 or my 300. (I could be off here folks.) I like what you all like: good color; sharp; non distracting bokeh.

This will probably come as sacrilige, but I never shoot a face wide open. I find it weird to have nose hair in focus but the back of head blurry.

Thanks again.

If any of you want to see what kind of silly pics I take:

FACEBOOK: Mike Danahy

INSTAGRAM: tough_as_a cream_puff

One of the sharpest lenses made is the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro lens that they made several years ago. Link provided below for Amazon. Also, a very sharp prime lens is the Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF lens introduced in 1988 and upgraded to the "D" chip in 1994. It is as sharp as the 85mm f1.4 lens but at a much cheaper price. And one of the sharpest of all time is the older 105mm f2.5 lens Nikon put out in 1959-60. If you seek this lens make sure it is AI or has been modified for today's camera models.

Sigma 70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (OLD MODEL)

Whatever one I have on my camera when I need it!

Chasing hardware absolutes is sort of irrelevant to the art of image-making. It's nice to have a good lens, but no one other than a photographer looks at a great photo and says, "Wow! Look at what that super-multi-coated, anti-astigmatic, apochromatic wonder glass 35mm lens did."

Almost any lens can yield crappy results or good results. Be sure you are not using too small an aperture for the sensor size in use. Diffraction rears its ugly little head as you stop the lens down past the "diffraction limiting of sharpness" aperture. That's somewhere around f/5.6 on Micro 4/3, f/7.1 on APS-C or DX, and f/9 on full frame. Diffraction limits sharpness, reduces contrast, and mutes/smears colors.

When you buy a lens, put it on a tripod and photograph a highly detailed scene at every aperture on the lens, using a fixed ISO and a shutter speed range that will allow correct exposure at all apertures. Compare the images at 100% on a monitor. That will tell you what you can expect...