But some people like the attributes of the lens despite the price,
like the quality of the pictures. And to say that it isn't a good
lens is just plain ridiculous, sorry.
But the statement which you chose to attack was bokeh-related.
"It looks like Sigma macro. Flat background, no volume, bokeh is like zoom's bokeh." He never even said it was a bad lens, just that some properties weren't as good as those of other lenses. And that's true.
"Sigma macro": maybe a little harsh, but I can totally see the point. It's a very sharp lens but some other things have obviously been ignored. There are always tradeoffs in lens designs.
"Flat background and no volume": I don't think one can really judge the "threedimensionality" from these shots, but if someone thinks so, OK. It might be possible. I have never understood this "3D-look" talk anyway, in my experience it's always related to subject and not lens properties (except perhaps bokeh). Anyway, I don't see a problem with that statement per se. It's an opinion. If someone else thinks it has a "4D-look", more power to them ;-)
"Bokeh is like zoom's bokeh": once again, this can absolutely be argued. The bokeh properties are not impressive. It's a provocative statement, but it's also true.
Now, there are zooms and there are zooms -- I think the bokeh of this lens is better than most zooms -- but there are even better zooms if we're talking about bokeh (take for example the 70-200/2.8 SSM).
Some Minolta lenses are simply grossly overrated in the bokeh department. I think it comes from the circular aperture and some people misunderstanding its purpose -- the circular aperture makes up for perhaps 10% of bokeh.
