Thank you for posting the link, but I tried to look, and for some reason none of the images would upload
Yours is a reasonable reply, but to cut to the chase, no, I was not looking for a fight. I merely stated my opinion that I was "underwhelmed" by the photos posted. Can a person give an honestly unfavorable view without necessarily "looking for a fight?"
I don't think any photo posted does anything noteworthy. Again, I say this honestly and not meanly. For instance, the photo of the spider on the flower does what? Could you look up that spider in a field guide and tell what kind it is? I think not.
To me (and this is my subjective view of macro lenses), the whole purpose of a macro lens is to make what you CAN'T see visible and clear. The shots I have taken of the spiders/robber flies augment and enlarge these tiny creatures up to a point where the intricacies of their bodies can be seen clearly and magnificently. I personally could give a hoot about the "bokeh" of the background, what I want to see are the up-close details
of the animals that I canNOT see with my naked eye.
Therefore, and again I mean no disrespect, but the other photos really don't do anything for me. The photo of the flower is in the ballpark, but yet the colors and clarity leave alot to be desired IMO. Again, can't a person make these statements w/o people getting upset? They are simply the truth as I see it.
I am not upset that you don't like my bokeh
But I am glad you like the clarity of my subjects
To me, the clarity of the subjects and the ability to really zoom-in and see the intricate details of tiny objects is the #1 purpose of a macro lens, and it is that way to 99.99999% of humanity. To marvel at the "bokeh" is essentially to miss the whole point of the photograph! Sure, if your subject is augmented to enough size so that you can see the intricacies of something you never would have been able to see otherwise, then you can worry about the bokeh. But if you haven't augmented something tiny up to a size and clarity that you can marvel at it to begin with, then who cares about the bokeh?
It is the same for a zoom or telephoto lens. To take a zoom photo of a bird, and yet only see a tiny speck on a branch that you can barely identify as a bird, and then to marvel at the surrounding "bokeh" (LOL) would be an insane and ludicrous way to judge a zoom or telephoto lens and the resulting picture. Absolutely silly. It's how close
and how clear and detailed
the zoom/telephoto can get in its picture-taking that defines the ability of these lenses also.
So again I say, the photos presented don't show me anything worth investing in, from a true macro perspective. They show me nothing I couldn't do (and do better) with the P&S camera I have. This was not to be rude, not to be mean, but it is my honest opinion based on the photos presented thus far.
Now if someone wants to show me a true macro shot of a subject brought to stunning size and clarity, then I would love to see it. But to show a photo of (what looks to be) a spider on a flower isn't a true macro shot; nor is a ho-hum shot of a bug on a leaf; I could do that with almost any camera.
A true macro shot should show amazing detail of things we simply can't see with our eyes.
That is my honest opinion,