In 35mm the 24,35,60 macro, and the 85 have done the bulk of my shooting. I have a few others(shorter and longer) but those four always went with me.
In MF, I have a 65 and a 180 (35 and 105 equivilent). My next lens would be the 40 (24 equivilent).
I like my 40 1.8 Hexanon on a Konica T4 or FT1. It is compact and razor sharp.
I have never owned the 57 1.4 Hexanon but have several others. The 50mm 1.7 is another favorite. I am awaiting delivery of a 55mm 3.5 macro that is supose to be sharp. Has anyone used one?
It seems it would depend on what you are doing. I earned a living doing photojournalism/documentary with only a 28 and an 85. Didn't even own a 50 for years.
Now-a-days, I generally mount a 24 or a 20 for my "walking around" lens.
Just the way I see the world I guess.
The 40mm is by far the best in Konica normals IMHO.
My Minolta 50mm AF f1.7 is very, nice. My current favorite.
Dude, Go for the 24mm.
I should have done that years ago, I wasted time and money with the 28, and 35.
With so many different manufacturers' systems from which to choose, it's impossible to be dogmatic. But I have to say with my Contax Zeiss gear, it was always a tussle between the 50 1.4 or 55 1.2 as the standard, and then either the 35 1.4 or the 28 f2 for wide-angle. If I would be shooting in low light or need very high shutter speeds, it was often the Planar 55 1.2 and the Distagon 35 1.4 BUT if you wanted pin-sharp edge-to-edge and a close focus capability (don't you just love those floating elements!) the Zeiss 28 f2 'Hollywood' lens could not be beaten - until the 21mm appeared and I've never shot with anything as sharp since. And when speed is not an issue, Yashica provides a stunning alternative in their legendary 24 2.8ML and 55 2.8 Macro ML lenses and will cost less than 1/6th the cost of the 21mm. The only problem with these 2 lenses is that over the last 6 months, canny Canon EOS users have started pushing their prices up...