Since no one has yet to answer your question ... yes. You have more depth of field options and it will only get sharper as you close down from f1.8 to f4 where the zoom lives. So it will likely give you equivalent sharpness and less depth of field when you want it.
The question others should have asked before answering is do you only want to shoot at 35 mm or do you have a need for 24-34mm or 36-105mm? The 24-105mm is a great lens. I have one and outside a 50mm f1.8 "nifty fifty" that I have for specific purposes it lives on my R6 if the 14-24mm f4 isn't on it. If you do a ton of street photography I would have both, for the same reason I have a 50mm. If you can only get one now then you need to lean towards which best suits the shooting you do.
For example, I shoot wildlife, and I would absolutely love a 400mm or 600mm f4. It would be glorious. That said, I shot previously with a Nikon 500mm, and while I loved it the flexibility of a 100-500mm when I switched was a revelation, even when I shot 80% of my photos at full extension (500mm). When I added another lens I added the 200-800mm and not a prime, again for the flexibility instead of the restriction fixed focal lengths demand. Those restrictions are less so with wider lenses, which is why I spend two weeks each quarter shooting with just the 50mm, to remind me how to take photographs and not just capture images. If you're asking the question I believe you will find value in eventually having both, because wide lenses at f4 just don't tell the story the way the same focal length at f1.8 does - sharpness be damned.
