>>3599193Have you ever shot a single leaf in a forest? I'd say no. So has the one that's giving him that advice. Mighty coincidence to have two such individuals on the board...
That image would be better if there was LESS blur. Larger number of foreground leaves would be in focus, and background would be more pleasing with cleaner, more natural look. With more blur, image would be ruined. He'd have a slither of focus on a part of few leaves, everything else would be blurred. You see, branches and leaves are spread on a wider spatial plane, slight difference in focus will leave everything blurred.
Another point. In any case he would not need to use different lens even if he needed more blur! A simple process of moving closer to the scene would give him more background blur on same aperture. Another detail that anyone that's ever shot a single leaf in the forest would know. Mighty coincidence that you and author of that nonsense don't know that...
