I own a bunch of prime lenses, and one other focal length I think the OP might wish to consider is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4...because for *me* at least, I find that my 45mm f/2.8 P-Nikkor is a great FL on FX. And so, on 1.5x, the 30mm Siggy would be that same, wonderful 45mm effective focal length, which is QUITE a bit different from a 35mm prime lens, which is a 52.5mm effective focal length on a 1.5x crop-body camera.
I've looked at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 a few times...I've seen some neat photos done with it on the web, and to me, I think that is a prime lens length that might be worth investigating instead of a 35mm prime.
The differences between a 30mm lens and a 35mm lens , and between a 45mm and a 50mm ('some of which' actually measure out at 52.5mm and NOT at exactly 50mm as stated!), or between a 50mm lens and a 58mm lens or a 60mm macro lens, are in actual use, noticeable differences.
Like for example, the 50mm versus 58mm...I've shot with both...the 58, or the 60mm macros are MUCH more-selective than "50mm" lenses are!!! Same with the 45mm versus the Nikon 50mm lenses (which are often 52.5mm in reality); the slightly wider field of view of the two different 45mm lens I have owned over the past 30 years makes me prefer the 45mm FOV over that of the 50, much of the time.
50mm (well, 52.5 on most Nikons I have seen accurately measured with lab tools) is a LOT more of a PITA in tight quarters than 45mm. GOing thru my EXIF, I have a tendency to find that 43mm is popular with my eye and brain....so, again, maybe the Sigma 30mm? And, this is the real reason I think my FOAFOMW likes that Tamron 20-40mm so,so,so much: it is like the "Super-Normal Lens": it incorporates a number of well-recognized angles of view: 20,21,24,25,28,35 and of course, it tops out at 40mm.