Yes, most R&D does on at the 2-seater lightweight end. I suppose that's where the market is in Europe.
Diamond, Cirrus and Lancair have come in over the past few years but IMHO there is very little actual innovation for IFR. Diamond have a problematic engine (TDI version) and its low wing loading is going to throw it around like a C172. Cirrus SR22 still has to be N-reg and cannot fly IFR in CAS unless clumsily retrofitted with ADF+DME (and IMV represents no innovation except the chute, and its fixed gear throws away any fuel efficiency of the composite airframe). Lancair isn't really suitable for Europe; I wouldn't take its fixed gear into too many grass fields.
For IFR, I would have expected to have an aerodynamically very good, composite, retractable, 200kt (at FL100 and 12 US GPH, IO540 engine) aircraft, capable of accepting all the avionics which one needs and not just 2 x GNS430, or the currently unproven (and reportedly not exactly reliable) glass panels like the G1000.
Cirrus could have done it but have gone for fixed gear; however they aim very much for the US fresh PPL market. It won't happen in the USA because their fuel is cheap and they get insurance discounts for fixed gear, Diamond didn't do it because their fuel is cheap (and I would suggest also company history; the DA40 builds on their glider designs), Lancair doesn't count IMV due to lack of European versatility, but it could happen in Europe. A composite version of the TB20 would get very close to what I regard as the ideal IFR aircraft.
Turboprops cost vastly more; one could argue the entry level of IFR is £200k (SEP) but the entry level of a turboprop is 5x higher. They offer little extra range over a decent SEP; the additional mission capability comes from a rapid climb rate and a higher ceiling thus avoiding the most common icing issues.
Come to think of it, does anyone know why the SR20 can be on G (EASA certified) but the SR22 cannot yet? It's been a very long time...