I was waiting for the OP to chime in, at least on substantive matters, but he seems to have gone to sleep. I'll therefore continue the off-topic thread about the definition of macro.
> I am afraid that the 1:1 reproduction ratio being needed for a lens to qualify as a macro lens is a myth.
You seem happy to put your trust in bloggers, journalists and marketeers but, alas, few of them are conscientious or even knowledgeable custodians of the language. I prefer more rigorous sources.
1. For instance, the ninth edition of The Manual of Photography (pub. 2000) says this:
"Not all ‘macro’ zoom lenses offer a genuine 1:1 image scale; the term ‘macro’ has become devalued and often just used to mean a close-focus capability." (They must have been thinking of you.)
The Manual -- formerly the Ilford Manual of Photography -- is a long-established and respected reference on photography, first published in 1890. Three of its four authors are fellows of the Royal Photographic Society, the main British learned body on photography, as well has having relevant MScs and PhDs. The fourth is a 'mere' BSc.
2. John Humphrey, another FRPS, says this in his book, Close-up and Macro Photography:
"Macro photography can be more precisely defined [than close-up photography]. It means the image on the sensor is at least as large as the image being photographed."
3. The Oxford English Dictionary says, about macrophotography:
"Photography in which objects are reproduced larger than or at their actual size but without the degree of magnification that use of a microscope would give."
4. The online Merriam Webster dictionary says this, under "macro lens":
"...a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image".
5. And, finally, even Wikipedia (multiple authors) goes with life-sized. From the entry on macro photography:
"...a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios of at least 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1."
A pretty substantial myth, eh?
Roger