I originally planned to buy the DA* 55 f1.4 for portrait but now debating whether to get the DA* 50-135 f2.8 instead.
For 55: lighter, more compact, larger aperture, cheaper
For 50-135: more versatile
The versatility is quite an important factor for me (e.g. I bought the 35mm macro limited because it is both normal - good for my style of street photography and a macro) but I'm quite concerned about the f2.8 aperture which is 2 stops slower than the 55 so harder to isolate subject.
What are your opinions?

Firstly, I did some low light close up pics and my 35mm limited seems to be doing what I think is focus seeking. The motor was like zzzzzz..(quick stop)..zz(quick stop)..zz..beep.
Most of the AF movement was done in the long zzzzzz but from the VF, I can tell the focus is almost there but not quite there. After the first zz, the lens almost overshot the perfect focus and then comes back to correct position in the last zz. Movement was very minute and the effect seen in the VF is very small but detectable nevertheless.
I thought Phase detect AF was supposed to just guide the lens to the correct position so this double checking is a kinda new to me. Is it normal? Should I be worried?

Also, the built-in hood seems to have a bit of play. When I slide it fully out, it can sort of wobble about 1-2 degrees if I push it on the side which feels quite alarming considering the rest of the lens is built like a tank. The lens almost gives me the impression that everything should feel like a solid steel tube, if you know what I mean. Can someone please help me confirm if I'm just being paranoid or something is indeed wrong with the hood?

Cheers.

Tiny sensor but I actually like the design. Maybe East Asians think alike.
After a while with Panny GH1 and the K-5 I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in the mirrorless K unless VF lag is close to zero and there is a hybrid sort of AF. CDAF is just not fast enough.

I'm too slow... *cry cry*

Thanks all for your advices. I took the plunge with the 35mm limited from SRS.
I think I read somewhere that you can't use the built-in hood with a filter on. Is it true?

I'm considering getting a UV filter to protect this investment. *please I do not wish this thread to become a UV vs hood debate*

Sorry, I should have posted the Day 5 review instead:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/01/23/field-review-the-pentax-k-5-day-5/
2nd paragraph under Image Quality.

But I very much would like to see your test as well.

Didn't know that at all. That makes future proofing even less important then.

I was originally indifferent between the two and initially wanted to do DNG but then found this review: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/02/04/the-complete-pentax-k-5-review/
The guy suggested that Lightroom removes purple fringing better in PEF RAW than DNG RAW.
Now someone on here also says PEF saves card space (which makes sense since I know about the embedded JPEG in DNG) which makes PEF an even better option. Faster clearing time and longer lasting SD. Nice!

I have to disagree somewhat with the future-proofing. As long as you have a working copy of Adobe Lightroom, you can convert all PEF to DNG as easy as 1-2-3 (+ some CPU processing power) - like I did with all my (Panasonic) RW2 to DNG. Why worry about future-proofing then? By the time PEF dies, everyone probably has computers fast enough to mass-convert PEF to DNG (with an older version of Lightroom) in like a second.

Some things have been bugging me for a while:
* Why is the number in reverse order? I mean, what will happen after the K5? K3, K1 and then?
* Do they actually mean the - in between K and number as "minus"? Then it makes perfect sense. But who would name their cameras with negative numbers? (immediately thinking "who would name their cameras *ist?")
* What happened to the K6?

Cheers, guys.
It seems like this lens a very good choice. Thanks a lot.

Hi guys,
Long story short: I'm returning my K-5 + kit lens due to sensor stain and decide to buy a K-5 body only + 1 separate lens instead.

Right now I'm very inclined toward the DA limited 35mm f2.8 macro.
The following pro/con comes from what I have researched.

Price: £375 (SRS)
Pro: go from 1:1 to infinity = very versatile, light, good built, decent price, very sharp at macro range
Cons: slow focus due to long focus range, busy/halo bokeh beyond macro range, normal focal length (not wide enough in some situations)
Questions: What is the lens IQ in non-macro range? How slow is the focus speed? Does the K-5 improved AF system help?

Some alternatives I have considered:
Sigma 24mm f1.8 "macro" - £404.99: 36mm equivalent so may be wide enough but designed for FF so big and heavy.
Sigma 85mm f1.4 - £673: great portrait lens but lack versatility and high price (plus I'm definitely getting the DA* 55mm f1.4 in the future)
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 - £275: cheapee! but I prefer the 18-135 (which I am also definitely getting to be my travel lens - the tropic needs WR AND range!)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - £299: same as above.

So is the 35mm limited a right choice?
Thanks a lot.