I'd been meaning to, thanks for the recommendation. I particularly like that the new AP's are only 3 adventures, so already had my eye on it!
PF2e seems like a good game but I haven't had a chance to extensively play it yet. It is very, very different than 3.5e/PF1e and 5e even though on the surface is looks similar.
There are some cool things that come from the 3 action economy, like martials are better off using their 3rd action to do something other than attack and have those options like debuff through demoralize. And movement and positioning is more important (although not as important as 4e) because for example if you move away from a monster that could deny them a 3 action super attack, etc. There is a little more emphasis on team tactics (although again not as much as 4e) vs. individual play, etc.
Also note that like 4e they screwed up the initial adventures, creating some bad impressions. The encounter building budgets actually work but the initial adventures frequently contained encounters that were "severe" and "extreme". These kind of encounters create a dynamic that really shouldn't be the norm -- lower than ideal hit chances, frequent crits by the enemy, spells not landing, etc. I think they are ok for that ocassional boss fight of course because they are really challenging. Later adventures have corrected this a bit and people that homebrew have had great success with "moderate encounters" with more enemies as the norm which are still challenging but helps with spellcaster relevancy as well.