>>3319029>Yeah, this place is seriously overrun by plebs. Again, I hate the /p/ catchphrase "raise your standards," and I don't mean it in an elitist way. I'm using a $1300 lens, so obviously I'm going to get clear results, even though it's not a dedicated macro lens, but there are plenty of budget options that are just as good for this level of ~.3x magnification at the minimum focusing distance. The plastic Canon kit lenses, like I mentioned, can achieve about the same level of magnification and are sharp lenses. Every camera manufacturer has a basic 35-60mm macro lens for under $200, and also Tamron and Sigma make them. If someone really likes macro photography, there are so many budget options with clear optics that there's just no excuse to be using a pinhole lens or ancient Sears zoom on an extension tube.
>Your shot isn't that great either, but a lot better than what's been posted so far.I am definitely still learning, and I just shoot to have fun. Here's another photo of the same wasps. The scene was a little backlit and no matter how I adjust the brightness in post, it still looks underexposed to me. This kind of thing just gets more and more frustrating the more I look at it and adjust it.
A few of the unsharp photos posted by other people could be actually nice looking if not for the purplish haze over everything caused by the junk lenses used, which is the only reason why I get annoyed. It just feels like wasted talent to use a pinhole lens or something retarded like that, if you're going to be out there shooting macro anyway. Might as well just use the right tool for the job, right? It would be like taking a trip out to Yellowstone and shooting wildlife with a point-and-shoot that you crop into massively.
