I looked on b&H for pricing on the Phoenix - it looks quite reasonable compared to the Sigma 105 f2.8 macro.
Then I made the mistake of looking at the 70-300 macro lenses (both Sigma and Tamron). Sigh - so many decisions. It makes sense to get the Sigma or the Phoenix - I'd be taking mostly flowers so don't really need a zoom with macro capabilities. I have the 50-200 which is plenty sharp, so I don't need the zoom for normal picture-taking, just for macro. The faster lens would be nice because it's often shady where I find flowers and extra speed would certainly help but isn't absolutely necessary. I find 200mm enough for handholding and I rarely bother to set up a tripod. My past experience with the FZ30 was that it wasn't fast enough for me to handhold. OK, I'm talked out of anything other than a prime lens around 100mm - that's what makes the most sense to me.
The price of the Phoenix is nice and I could swing that fairly soon, where the Sigma or Pentax would have to wait. However, I'd hate to get it and discover that I wouldn't be happy with how sharp the pictures are (I do love sharp flower pictures) - I'd rather wait and spend the money once. And after my 1 month experience with the FZ30, I've discovered I'm pretty picky when it comes to my own pictures. How much worse is the Phoenix?