I opened both images in Irfanview and checked the lens data. In both images they where equal. Also with exiftools.
However, when I open these images in PL6.3 I get the notification that for the _MG_2944.CR3 file there’s one module available.
The other image shows 2 modules.
How is that possible??
George
…well, you can still edit the database (when DPL is not running) if you must deliver an improved image…
Note the lens module ID in the first line, which also shows the lens ambiguities and the edited entry in the second line. This mod makes DPL use the correct module…as long as you don’t reindex the folder containing the files, the entries of which have been modded.
Other than that: Wait until DxO comes up with a useful fix.
… and as long as you don’t delete the database 
That is the question! In my non-EXIF mind, that really doesn’t make sense. But, I am by no means an expert in any of this nor do I play one on TV.
Thanks for the information, but I don’t have that table (ZDOPSOURCE) available in DB Browser ro SQLite on my Windows 11 pc. I even changed the language to German on the odd chance that the tables are named differently…but no go. And even if I did, I am not sure I would begin to know how to edit the EXIF…but I can use my Google machine to learn how probably.
If you like, you can zip your database and attach it. I can then try to see where you’d need to modify entries…
Editing the files with ExifTool will take more effort. LensType tags use numerical IDs as well as several other tags to characterise a lens. Getting everything right will not be easy, unless you get lucky.
Thanks for the offer. I think I will first wait on DXO customer service and see if they can offer a solution. If not, I might come back to you.
Update: I have cleaned the contacts on the camera body, the ef-rf adapter as well as the lens. No change, still random images which PL6 identifies incorrectly and only gives the choice of using the wrong optical module or no optical module.
I still haven’t gotten any type of reply from DXO customer service after 2 days. Not even a “we are looking at your situation…” I worked in customer service for 18 years before moving to Germany and this is definitely poor customer service in my opinion, but I have had this sort of experience with DXO in the past.
I just had a popup listing which Apple phone was I using lising all of them as far as I could see
. Odd as it was Sony a6400 and 90 mm sony micro both preinstalled and used being used for processing. Clicked on the imige and the Apple pop up went and never came back how it could come up with it is not clearer as both camera and lense been in use for year’s with the only problem is DxO dropping distance reading in windows for the macro and other.lenses.
Maybe DXO is planning on shipping me a new Sigma lens and you all of the iPhones…I am a bit jealous I guess… 
Lens id are stored as a number.The program has to interpret that number as a name. These numbers are not standardized. So maybe, I’m pretty sure, the Sigma and the Tamron lens have the same number.
George
They are all very old phones not a usfull current lense but the old Apple phones would probably sell well to collecters!
I have the same opinion as you. I think the third question is why doesn’t DXO allow the user to make the choice when the information it gets from the file makes it not clear which lens was used?
Good question…
Imagine DPL’s lens recognition algorithm to be sure that the Sigma was used. This could be the case if some other metadata was taken into account, and DyO has said it does indeed quite a while ago.
Nevertheless, manual module selection could
Also, it would be a good idea if manufacturers devised a solution that allows unambiguous lens id tagging. Computers manufacturers have done it with MAC- addresses for years.
While we’re already at the pane of fantasms: if DxO would not only allow to select a DxO profile manually, it would be incredibly innovative, revolutionary and whatever (by DxO standards) to benefit of the lens’ inbuilt lens profiles. By simply choosing the inbuilt profile.
But this would be too close to LR and C1, right? And if anything, DxO is different from them.
And seeing what assumptions like “@bconner, it’s only in your imagination you own a Tamron lens. Truly it’s a Sigma, we’re sorry to tell you, but we simply know better” DxO comes up with, it would surprise me if they would not find a way to mess up with the inbuilt profiles.
I start beginning thinking to buy an update of PL, just for entertainment reasons.
What is that “inbuilt lens profile”?
George
I’m not completely an expert about that, but the tendency in lens development is going the way to make a lens optically not perfect in terms of distortion-correction, but get rid of chromatic aberration and make it as sharp and high-resolving as possible. Then a lens profile, inbuilt in the lens’ firmware and stored either on(logic)board of the lens or in camera, can correct the distortion by software correction.
Saves the manufacturer some extra glass-elements production, grinding and polishing time and makes the users very depending on some sort of software correction (either by RAW converters or lens fimrware). Also, increases the benefits for manufacturers. Especially Nikon stands out with high prices for highly distorting glass (like the 14-30/4 with about 12% distortion). Sigma also goes that way (as you should know by owning a “Tamron” camouflaged Sigma zoom 
) and a couple of others as well.
Edit: Oh no, sorry, it’s @bconner who owns the “maybe that or maybe the other” standard zoom. /Edit.
LR and C1 can read and use either the manufacturer profile or their own profiles. Sometimes the Sigma profile is better, other times C1’s. Good to be able to switch and choose.
In Canon bodies, lens corrections (and lens detection) parameters are stored in the camera body and can be updated (on newer bodies) with an EOS utility. If I don’t store the lenses I use, the camera might not be able to correct lens flaws when it stores JPEG files. The respective camera store or firmware allows a limited number of autocorrection datasets though.
The problem in this thread is not the correction itself but the identification of the lens.
I’ve been searching about lenscorrections in LR but as far as I could see it’s the same as in PL: a self created database.
George
Apps applying lens corrections need a mapping between the information taken from metadata and the correction module/file…and this is usually kept in some kind of file or database table which is filled by the app provider and this all feels quite okay imo.
If automatic lens recognition were always spot on, corrections could also be applied automatically. Now, if we consider the real world situation of several manufacturers communicating the same lens id to the camera, ambiguities are created and need to be resolved. Why not delegate this task to the user?
In the case brought up by the OP, there’s quite a variety of lenses using exactly one ID
137 = Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM or Sigma or Tamron Lens
137 = Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
137 = Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM
137 = Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
137 = Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM
137 = Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM
137 = Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C
137 = Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM
137 = Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM [II]
137 = Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD (B008)
137 = Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM
137 = Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC (B005)
137 = Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro Di II (G005)
137 = Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM
137 = Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
137 = Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM
137 = Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II
137 = Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS
138
Source: Canon Tags
According to the DPL6 module database, DPL6 lists 22 lens candidates (LensID 137) for the EOS R (body 607) - also noting that YMMV with DPL6 on Windows.
Enough techie stuff for the moment. Let DxO devise and implement a solution to the problem at hand. My proposal is to simplify the logic of lens recognition and let the user choose the appropriate model as was possible in DPL versions 4(?) and before.
