Would like to repeat my wild prediction of a full-frame EVIL, just in case

The other thing to bear in mind is that AF doesn't have "eye detection" - it might well be focusing on the front of the subject's eyelashes (black lashes on white background of the eye). It's worse when taking photos at an angle of a subject wearing glasses.

It could be if someone found themselves unable to buy the lenses they planned to. For example at the beginning of 2009, a DA 12-24, FA35 and FA50 (I'm just picking an arbitrary 'upgrade set' for landscape photographers!) would have cost a total of £830. Today it's £1589 (£829 DA12-24, £430 FA35, £330 FA50). For £1589 one could buy a Canon EOS 50D and two out of the three lenses (35 f2 and 50 f1.4). The money gained by selling Pentax gear could then be used to pay for a 10-22 with cash left over.

I happen to love my Pentax gear, because the lenses are fabulous, for my own uses the camera's better than the other three systems (hint: K20D has weather sealing. I live in a place where rain is just called 'weather' ), but I can see why that would be attractive to some.

It's also sharper wide open, if that matters to the OP

The FA35 costs the same from SRS (I asked Chris when I was hunting one a while ago, he said they don't bother keeping them in stock because of the price but could get one if I really wanted).

The problem with comparing across the rest of the range is that the result is the same (though not always to the same extreme) - 100mmish macro lenses, ultrawide zooms, 200mm primes... the only areas where Pentax is competitive in price (that I've thought of looking for) are 300mm primes and fast standard zooms (ie DA*16-50 vs Canon 17-55).

I think those who switch for lens reasons (rather than, for example, body AF performance) can be put into two camps: prices and range. There is no question that Pentax lenses are fabulous, and generally equal or better in comparisons with Canikon equivalents, but the lens someone can't afford because it just tripled in price takes rubbish pictures for them Similarly the current Pentax range doesn't compare very well to Canikon in performance at 400mm!

Fair enough - I've just dug up two lenses of comparable capabilities (EDIT: This should of course be 'three lenses' - I initially forgot about the Canon).

*New 35mm f2 on Pentax - £430 FA35
*New 35mm f2 on Canon - £220 EF 35mm f2,
*New 35mm f1.8 on Nikon - £170 35mm f1.8 DX

Now the Canon lens might not be any good (haven't checked), but the Nikon one got a very good review from Photozone. So for these two directly comparable lenses (the prices are all from the same place, Warehouse Express), Pentax loses by a long, long way. Doesn't stop me wanting the DA35 though

Not necessarily - if a company simply won't offer a common lens, then it is only fair to compare what they do offer. So comparing the Canon 50mm f1.8 to the Pentax 50mm f1.4 in price (which I think is what you're getting at here) is not unreasonable, because both are the cheapest 'fast fifty' in their respective camera systems.

The redesign doesn't really bother me, but the fact that at the same time the articles have become shorter and less detailed does.

Really? I know SDM lenses are slower than screw drive, but with the DFA100's tendency to hunt from 1:1 to infinity I'd assumed it was the slowest.

I have the non-WR version of the DFA 100 Macro - I love the bokeh on it (the WR has 9-bladed aperture so its will be any better) and it is generally an all-round great lens. However as a macro lens, its AF will be much slower than the DA*50-135's as well as noisier.