Why can EXIF show 302mm on a 70–300mm lens?
Asked 1/1/2016
3 views
2 answers
0
I saw a photo taken with a 70–300mm f/4.5–5.6 lens, but the EXIF data lists the focal length as 302mm. How can the recorded focal length be slightly longer than the lens’s stated maximum of 300mm?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
17
When the engineers are designing a lens, the 70-300 is a target focal range they design to, but it's not important that they hit it exactly as long as it covers the advertised range. As they tweak the lens characteristics to get a suitably sharp and quality image for the target cost, the actual focal lengths may change slightly. Eventually, when everything is "good enough" it's time to mass produce it, as it's not worth the time to have the staff readjust the design to stop right at 300.
It's not at all uncommon to have lenses, even prime lenses, have an actual measured focal length to be slightly different than the listed focal length. Nobody is really going to care if their 50mm prime lens is actually 48.9mm or 52.1mm, but it's close enough to compare it to other "50mm" primes, and searching for a lens in a catalog where it listed 48.9 instead of nice round numbers like 50 would be even more obnoxious than lens shopping already is. When you are looking for a 35mm lens, you are really looking at a class of lenses where the focal length is 'close enough' to 35mm.
Then, adding to all this, the focal length of a lens can often change with the focus distance, and for photography lenses this is almost always the case. This is known as "focus breathing", and only for cinema lenses does anyone bother to design the lens to maintain the same focal length throughout the focus distance range. Supposedly the focal length is supposed to be specified with the lens focused at infinity, but I don't know if that's true.
Originally by user7977. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7977
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
This is normal. Lens focal lengths are nominal, not exact calibrated limits. A “70–300mm” zoom is designed to cover that range, but the actual measured focal length can vary slightly due to design tolerances and manufacturing variation. A small difference like 302mm is well within what you might see in practice.
Also, EXIF focal length reporting is not always perfectly precise. Cameras/lenses may round, estimate, or report values that differ slightly from the marketed specification.
Another possible explanation is a teleconverter, since that increases effective focal length, though in that case EXIF handling depends on the camera/lens system and may or may not clearly report it.
So the most likely answer is simply that “300mm” is a rounded, advertised value, and 302mm in EXIF is a minor normal variation—not a problem with the lens or metadata.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Does the Tamron 70-300mm for Sony a7 III provide a true 300mm focal length?
Nikon DX telephoto zooms: AF-P 70-300mm VR vs AF-S 55-300mm VR
Why does my Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens show f/5.6 at 300mm?
Why doesn’t a lens’s physical length match its focal length?
Why does a variable-aperture zoom change f-number when I zoom, and will Aperture Priority still expose correctly?