Well, from my perspective, what pricks up my ears a bit is how it's billed on *sharpness across the frame.* If it performs well in that way, and is reasonably light and compact, it may actually be something of minor interest to me. An FA 35/2 would probably fill my needs better, (I actually use the actual speed sometimes, and full-frame happens, considering I still shoot film, but the simple fact is my fast Sigma 28 is a *beast.* But I like it for the same reasons I see promise in what that this lens is billed with: edge sharpness. When I use a wider lens, including normals, the subjects often aren't near the center. )
....Anyway, if this starts putting some pretty spectacular results in the hands of a lot of that like 'K-x market' that seems to have cropped up, great. Cause, really, a kit zoom is a kit zoom. Affordable, fully-compatible AF primes can really distinguish Pentax.
I'd buy this lens and a K-x or a K-r for my little sister in a *second.* 2.4 and high ISO in a lens like that is actually a pretty good combination: (even if the speed's limited, for some who don't think about it, the really shallow DOF can foul shots that didn't have to be: with the in-body SR, better to keep it close to what the screen shows, most of the time, I'd think. )
She's got at *least* as much of an eye as I do, just a lot less training and interest in the technology. (Went into painting and music. Born under a different sign, but she always did great when I'd hand her a camera and a normal lens.
) I think this lens would actually work out pretty well for her. There's a lot of people like that, artsy but not technically-oriented.
(And if Pentax isn't including the hood, that's a disservice. Takes probably less plastic than the *packaging* and does *so* much to make people (and camera companies) look good. It's not like there's big marketing dollars to be made. )