Third-party lenses and EXIF data

I was looking through a few pics a friend had taken. When I peeked at her EXIF data, I remembered something I never thought of. Hope that last sentence made since. My language doesn't translate into english very well. It had "Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6" listed as the lens mounted even though it was a Tamron 70mm-300mm set to 300mm. Would the camera or other software being used take that information and apply false adjustments to compensate for issues that the EXIF says it is rather than the lens that was really on it. Taking it kinda to an extreme, doesn't the camera sense/communicate when a wide angle lens is on and "thinks" about what your trying to take a picture of (ie landscape), even though it might really be a telephoto lens for bird shooting? It prolly isn't that important when shooting in manual or with RAW files. That takes all the "camera guessing" out of it I think. It just seemed odd, especially when it read out the correct focal length of 300mm, but insisted on 80-200 lens. Any thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bryan Carnathan in any/all TDP Sigma or TamronLens Reviews

...(Sigma/Tamron) reverse engineers (vs. licenses) manufacturer AF routines...



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

It's probably based on which Canon lens Sigma or Tamron decided to emulate for compatibility. My Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF masquerades as a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM in the EXIF data. I don't see it as a problem. I'd be more concerend about focusing issues these two tend to have.

OMG really! I used to have two lenses (since I have sold them) that didn't report acurruately in the EXIF their names. It was SUPER irritating! I had a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 and in the "Lens" info it would say "17-70mm"


Ugh! Then... I had a Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5 fisheye lens (REALLY nice lens btw!) and that one says "10-17mm"


Anyone know if there is a way to say that THIS is really THAT? Like label the third party lenses? I guess my situation isn't as bad as the one you described because that one is VERY detailed, but wrong. I wouldn't like that! But I also don't like it to be so vague. Anyhow, just agreeing with your frustration!

Jarhead, obviously focusing issues would be MUCH more of a problem, but I'm assuming we're not talking about focusing issues here. My Sigma lens was so-so quality but good focusing, and my Tokina was a beautiful lens. I'm a bit sad I sold that. All that aside, it's nice to have good records of camera/lens types, and more-so I think, focal lengths and apertures. So if a 200mm max lens was reporting 300mm, that'd tick me off! It's confusing. Luckily, for me, I now have all Canon lenses and they all report correctly. One exception: I own the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (also a very nice lens!) and just like the others, it reports "11-16mm" ugh... no manufacturer, type etc... just range. Oh well!

I might be wrong, but I believe the newer versions of DPP recognise more lenses, at least it said so on Canon's web-site when I checked for upgrades. My Tamron 17-50 and 11-17 are both correctly listed in the EXIF data (own a 400D from 2008). Perhaps an update of the firmware of the cameras might help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

Perhaps an update of the firmware of the cameras might help?

---

It was shot with a 40D and think it had the lastest firmware (as of January anyway when I sold it to her).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

I might be wrong, but I believe the newer versions of DPP recognise more lenses

---

So the camera doesn't have the final say-so with what the lens really is? It's just reading a bunch of words/numbers and displaying what it thinks it is and not relabeling it. Good to know DDP won't read the wrong focal lengths and also tweak to the wrong lens. Although that Tamron needed just about every tweak available. As far as in-camera,I guess they used a proper algo. for the focal range and I shouldn't worry about it.


To be honest, I never read many of the off-brand lens reviews here and just stuck with the Canon ones. I didn't know Tamron/Sigma <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]stole reverse-engineer Canon lens to get their specs. Can't they walk on their own two feet by now? Maybe I shouldn't judge until I hear the whole story. I'm sure a little of this goes on everywhere.


Sorry to the OP for taking this off topic[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

I didn't know Tamron/Sigma <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]stole reverse-engineer Canon lens to get their specs. Can't they walk on their own two feet by now?

---

They don't reverse engineer the lenses from an optical standpoint - the reverse engineering is from a control standpoint, i.e. AF routines, aperture control, etc. When Canon designs a new body, they make sure (by adjustments in firmware, if necessary) that it works properly with all appropriate Canon lenses. They are under no obligation to test or make allowances for 3rd party lenses. That means older 3rd party lenses may not work electronically with bodies that are newer than the electronics in the lens - they may not autofocus, or they may be stuck at the wide open aperture. Sometimes the lenses can be re-chipped by the manufacturer to work with the newer body (which is where Tamron's 6-year warranty may come in handy).

Well, now I'm on the side of Tamron! Car companies tried to stop (and in some cases succeeded) aftermarket partsfrom being made by not releasing information about the designs. Now you can total a car by hitting a Mayfly. I just thought (wrongly) that cameras were more "open-sourced" than what they really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Well, now I'm on the side of Tamron!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Why would Canon be concerned about third party lens performance? They don't make a dime off third party lenses. I'd assume Sigma/Tamron/Tokina could license Canons AF routines but they don't. Should Canon just give away proprietary information so you can buy a third part lens instead of theirs?


If you want the best results from a third party lens manufacture you couldtry a Sigma body and all Sigma lenses (at least that seems like it'd work). I'd rather stick with Canon myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

Should Canon just give away proprietary information so you can buy a third part lens instead of theirs?

---

Tamron fills a niche that Canon should stay out of (cheap made lenses). I remember when John Deere mowers were well built. Then they decided to get into the chain stores. They cut every corner they could. Made me puke everytime I went by a lot with one of those "tin can" mowers out front painted all green and yellow. Point is, they ruined their name by making cheap tinker toys. Canon should stick with making quality lenses and have Tamron/Sigma/Tokina do what they do best, help get people in the door of the Canon camp. Not everyone can afford the good stuff up front. Plus it helps the creative juices of your design team if someone else is on their heels. And it might keep our prices down a little.


After reading what I just typed, I almost answered your question. This old age thing ain't working for me. I'm rambling and reminising alot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

I remember when John Deere mowers were well built.

---

Their tractors aren't near what they used to be either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Canon should stick with making quality lenses

---

Agreed, my point is Canon isn't doing anything wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Tamron/Sigma/Tokina do what they do best, help get people in the door of the Canon camp.

---

They also make lenses for Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

This old age thing ain't working for me.

---

Beats the alternative [:P].


(EDIT: I just looked at your profile. 35 is not old, I should know I'm 35.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

Their tractors aren't near what they used to be either.

---

Amen to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

my point is Canon isn't doing anything wrong

---

I'll agree with that too. I just agree with the PCbusiness planmore than the Apple plan. PC is wide open and anyone can make software for itwhich is why most of the world uses them. Apple is very selective in its offerings and more expensive because they are the only ones holding the ropes. I hope Neuro doesn't read this. He'd poke all kinds of holes in this theroy[*-)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

They also make lenses for Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus

---

Exactly! Canon cuts them out entirely and they become Apple. They'll hold maybe 10% of the market then and have to raise prices to cover the loss. Nikon,ect. will benefit with the extra support from cheaper third party lenses to suck you in to their camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

Beats the alternative

---

You mean old AND married? I'm feeling better already[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

(EDIT: I just looked at your profile. 35 is not old, I should know I'm 35.)

---

Only 35 until Friday[:'(]

The point is that the third party lens makers keep Canon and Nikon honest. What happens if Canon doesn't have competitors making lenses for their platform -- they can charge almost anything they want. The less competition, the more they can charge for the brand.


Of course you can say Nikon is still there as competition. But once someone has settled on that platform and bought a few lenses, they are unlikely to want to switch. So the two big camera makes also need competition in the lens department.


And the more we just accept that status quo, the more we're going to pay for the brand. If it was up to me, I would be pushing for Tamron and Sigma to develop higher quality lenses instead of trashing them. And I would acknowledge that for folks who don't have deep pockets, a third party lens may give you more bang for the buck. That's what keeps Canon quality up and their prices reasonable.

Don't forget the basics guys...it's not the gear that makes the best photos, it's the man or woman using it.


My point, perhaps Canon lenses are generally better, doesn't mean Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party brands can't compete. And if you want to have the bang for bucks argument, I'm afraid Canon looses in a lot of situations [;)]


A technical correct photo isn't per se a great photo [:#]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

My point, perhaps Canon lenses are generally better, doesn't mean Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party brands can't compete

---

You proved that with your Sigma. I know you had to send it back, which if they just fixed their QC policy, they would be an awesome company, but once they fixed it, it was uber sharp. The Canon version, while consistent with QC, is always soft from what you folks say.


The Tamron lens in question, was an all-in-one that I bought to see if I wanted to go the DSLR route and for the $136 it cost me new,it did it's job. Just stay away from anything white. Uhg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Don't forget the basics guys...it's not the gear that makes the best photos, it's the man or woman using it

---

Lots of folks have great reps and they use Nikon, so you know it ain't the gear[6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

My point, perhaps Canon lenses are generally better, doesn't mean Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party brands can't compete

---

You proved that with your Sigma. I know you had to send it back, which if they just fixed their QC policy, they would be an awesome company, but once they fixed it, it was uber sharp.

---

I've never send it back thanks to in-camera micro-adjustment [;)]


I also had a tamron 17-50 before I updated to the canon 17-55 and I also loved that lens, although focus was a bit slow for my needs. But quality-wise it could compete to the canon in like 9/10 situations and that for 3/8 of the price! I would call that bang for bucks. If you had both lenses and you'd make the same photo and ask your family which one they prefer....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Lots of folks have great reps and they use Nikon, so you know it ain't the gear[img]/emoticons/emotion-14.gif[/img]

---

Hard to believe haha [6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I've never send it back thanks to in-camera micro-adjustment

---

I remember now! I was close.


I've still got my Tammy 28-75mm. I use it on a crop and it hides the vignetting. It's a little noisy and hunts in low light, but for $350...come on. Pretty sweet. Just wish it went a little wider to have gotten all the waterfall.


EDIT: And Tamron lens caps ROCK! It might be a small thing, but in my eyes or lack there of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

I just agree with the PCbusiness planmore than the Apple plan. PC is wide open and anyone can make software for itwhich is why most of the world uses them. Apple is very selective in its offerings and more expensive because they are the only ones holding the ropes. I hope Neuro doesn't read this. He'd poke all kinds of holes in this theory

---

Lol. Well, I was going to just let this slip past - but there was a blurb on the business news this morning that Apple now has the highest corporate valuation of any US tech company (beating out Microsoft by a couple of billion). I suppose they must be doing something right. The report credited the iPhone and iPad for their increased value - but, personally I think it was Mark's recently-purchased iMac that sent them over the top. [:P]

When surrounded by facts I can't dispute, I tend to lean towards childish tactics...I RUBBER AND YOUR GLUE[:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

personally I think it was Mark's recently-purchased iMac that sent them over the top

---

Just doing my part :-)

Happy birthday "andnowimbroke" I hope 36 isn't too bad being I'll be joining you in about a month. What did you get yourself for your birthday?

(Me? I'm getting a AlienBees B800 with a PLM.)

I spent the last two waking hours of being 35 looking for the house keys for theplace I'm watching in the rain. I hit the ground running for some waterfall pictures this morning. It rained like crazy here. Thirty minute drive to the falls...not so much. Went to the lumber yard to pick up some materials for my steps and was going to use my Sandisk rebate card...expired last month. On the VERY plus side though,I still have my freedom thanks to you and your family. Have a safe weekend and thank you[:D]





-Greg

Didn't know it was your birthday... congratulations!! [^]

Thank ya Sheiks! Wouldn't mind having a 500mm f/4 or Sigma 300-800mm. Just thought I'd throw that out there[;)]

Haha just ask mr. realityinabox where he found his wife...[;)] that's the place to be [:D]