Good luck in your quest.
Hope you've seen my poll....
#2 the 35-80 21% and #5, DA 18-55 , 5%
SO one quarter of the folks expressing an opinion favoured the IQ of the kit lenses over the more expensive zooms and primes. Even when pixel peeping 10% still preferred the kit lenses to the DA 35 , Tamron 17-50 and Supet Tak 35, ƒ3.5.
Meanwhile the much maligned 18-135 got 21% of the uncropped vote and no lens got more than 28%.
The mistake is, people think because a lens is sharper on a few test charts, they think they'll like it more. But in blind tests, nothing is further from the truth. Other factors besides overall sharpness as rated on the charts count for more. And sure I know you love your Super Tak 35 ƒ3.5 or DA*35 2.4, but there's a 21% chance according to the numbers, you'd like the 18-135 more.
What's truly insane is that the folks going on about edge to edge sharpness etc. have never done a blind test to see if they even prefer the way those lenses render. Just from the numbers , it's pretty easy to see, a lot of people are pushing lenses they don't know they like, because they read a couple of reviews and saw a couple of test charts. And as pointed out earlier in the thread, many of them will become abusive if you point that out.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html
In my tests, the only lens that tested poorly was the FA-J 18-35, a lens I paid 99$ for and bought only in case I bough a K-1 as it's an FF lens/. The Tamron 17-50 did poorly, but there was some kind of AF issue messing with the lens that day. Several days later in another test it wast at the top of the class.
When someone says they value "sharpness," the obvious answer is, based on a bit of blind testing where 70% did not favour the rendering of the technically sharpest lens, the correct answer to that would be "that's statistically unlikely."