Mudlake's advice is solid. I have owned most the m 35mm's and many others. Sure, there are a couple that have a look that's super hard to produce in post (like a CY 35/1.4 or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH), but most of the modern options, IMO are less different that you would think. As always, subject, light and composition and usability matter more than the lens in 95% of opportunity then. And if you aren't shooting WO often, then lenses differences shrink futher.
So, to get back to your question--why not go with a CV 35/1.7? Of the m glass adapted to Sony, it's still performs pretty well. The lens as good global contrast and ok micro-contrast. With some minimal but intentional processing after profiling to a 35 Lux FLE I used to own, I can get the 2 lenses to look very similar bumping the CV's color and punch. OOF will be different. You can find it for $400 or under, it's fast, small-ish, and I think has better ergo than the ZM 35/1.4 or Thypoch 35/1.4. The CV 35/2 and 35/1.4 FLE v1 have perfect ergo for me, so the CV looses out to those two.
All of the m-lenses essentially are comprises--if you want super well correct lenses that are fast, you have go the GM/Sigma type route (though those lenses are boring to me) or suffer a stop penalty with an APO. And the APO is large for m-mount.
Anyway, from center to outer midzone on the CV 35/1.7 is solid, even on a Sony stock body at typical shooting distance. At infinite, you can get the whole plane of focus in focus shooting at 1.7 if you focus on the midzone which helps mitigate sensor stack induced FC. Yes, the CV is not the ZM 35/1.4, but with a little love in post, it's actually a great option. It has generally smooth bokek till the background get really complex at longer distance and some swirl/cat's eye. But again, a common issue with fast m-mount lenses.
It's very versatile. I prefer the 35 FLE, CV 35/2 and ZM 35/1.4 slightly, but no at the size, price and optical hit you take on a Sony.
