My Roxsen Focal Reducer/ "Speedbooster" clone arrived today

[RnR]

As far as I'm aware, until Metabones range of focal reducers came along, Speed booster as a descriptive for a focal reducer didn't exist. If your argument is true, then Google's trademark has become invalid since 'google it' is now a descriptive for doing a web search. Which doesn't sound right to me

 

[speedandstyle]

Well, if the Metabones lawyers send such a letter, they could (should IMO) have a fight on their hands. If I were a competitor, I'd immediately file a challenge with the U.S. Trademark office on the grounds that "Speed Booster" is merely descriptive and therefor not a valid trademark.

Sorry but that is not how trademarks work! If you file for one and get it it is yours! Now the trademark is for a certain market and also only works in any/all areas you file for trademark. For instance Apple computers was fine until they started to sell music via iTunes then they had to settle a lawsuit with Apple Records{the Beatles old label}. Harley got in trouble a few years back because they did not have the rights to the name "Sportster" in Mexico. Chrysler owns a trademark with the Jeep, the design of the grill! Any vehicle with a grill even close to the original Jeep and Chyrsler sues! They sued at least two companies that I know of on it. Finally, Nike owns the trademark slogan of "Just Do It" even though it is three very common words!

So if Metabones filed for a trademark to "Speed Booster" then they can sue all they like!

 

[RnR]

wturber may have something after all...

A generic trademark, also known as a genericised trademark or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that has become the generic name for, or synonymous with, a general class of product or service, usually against the intentions of the trademark's holder.

A trademark is said to become genericised when it began as a distinctive product identifier but has changed in meaning to become generic. A trademark typically becomes "genericised" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share such that the primary meaning of the genericised trademark becomes the product or service itself rather than an indication of source for the product or service. A trademark thus popularised has its legal protection at risk in some countries such as the United States and United Kingdom, as its intellectual property rights in the trademark may be lost and competitors enabled to use the genericised trademark to describe their similar products, unless the owner of an affected trademark works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use.[1][2][3]

Zipper, aspirin and heroin are examples of trademarks that have become genericized in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

Such laws kinda suck, but thems the breaks I guess.

 

[brianc1959]

As far as I'm aware, until Metabones range of focal reducers came along, Speed booster as a descriptive for a focal reducer didn't exist. If your argument is true, then Google's trademark has become invalid since 'google it' is now a descriptive for doing a web search. Which doesn't sound right to me

Damn straight! It took me and a colleague more time to develop the Speed Booster trademark than it did to design the initial product. Given that focal reducers have existed in the astronomy world for many decades and none of them has ever been referred to as a Speed Booster speaks volumes regarding the obviousness or overt descriptiveness of the name. FWIW, Roxen and its ilk are basically pirates - selling a product of uncertain origin and sponging off the good name established by others while refusing to develop a unique brand and readily identifiable product of their own. A number of these resellers also steal the name Lens Turbo, often in the same breath that they steal the name Speed Booster.

 

[tosvus]

I agree - focal reducer is as far as these guys should go in describing this. As far as I understand, no solution can compete with metabones speed booster in quality, so it is confusing from a consumer standpoint as well as being a blatant rip-off.

OT: Any plans for metabones to support Sony alpha lenses in m43, preferably with electronics for aperture?

 

[RnR]

OT: Any plans for metabones to support Sony alpha lenses in m43, preferably with electronics for aperture?

Brian doesn't have any control over what Metabones does with his optics. If he did, I would have moved mountains to virginia to get the Konica one a bit higher up the priority list

 

[brianc1959]

Brian doesn't have any control over what Metabones does with his optics. If he did, I would have moved mountains to virginia to get the Konica one a bit higher up the priority list

Unfortunately, all of the non-Canon/Nikon mounts are very specialized items with limited sales. So even though I agree that a Konica version would be a good idea, its hard to put together the money and resources needed to get one to market. Personally, I'm happy to see as much variety as there is, with nine different m4/3 versions available. Hopefully its just a matter of time before a Konica version appears.

 

[speedandstyle]

Hopefully its just a matter of time before a Konica version appears.

Let them know you want one. I don't understand why they made some rather odd mounts and neglected others like Konica. I had never heard of an Alpa before seeing the Speedbooster for it listed on Metabone's site.

 

[GRIDDD]

Have anyone here tested some of these "speed boosters" with a 300mm F2.8 or simular?
I would be interested in that since my 300 can be quite long when i´m on a rally and needing to frame a hole car in some dense forrest.

I´m worried that the longer lenses will show the loss in quality more, or isnt that the case?

 

[RnR]

Have anyone here tested some of these "speed boosters" with a 300mm F2.8 or simular?
I would be interested in that since my 300 can be quite long when i´m on a rally and needing to frame a hole car in some dense forrest.

I´m worried that the longer lenses will show the loss in quality more, or isnt that the case?

Focal reducers... not "speed boosters" I don't believe you will have anything to worry about. I've used my Nikon G Speedbooster on a Nikon 180mm f2.8 and a Nikon 300 f4.5. In both cases with very good results.

Nikon 300mm f4.5 ED-IF @f8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I gave a quick mini review of the 180mm in this post -> https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=52850&page=7&p=598799#post598799

 

[eddie design]

Hi there, I recently bought a Roxen adapter for my eos lenses to OMD E-M5 body. But later the ebay seller told me that the rear element of the adapter will touch (damage) the sensor of my E-M5 !
Did anyone have such experience or knowledge? Is it true?

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

I did read a warming but I think the warning is there to cover their arses ... as far as I know they do not touch the sensor since they are designed for the m4/3rds system.
It is easy to check once you have the thing in your hands.

 

[eddie design]

Thank you very much for your advice. This was the message from the seller "It may not be suitable for E-M5 because the optical glass may block the mount". I think I made a mistake that he did not say that the rear element would touch the sensor but he meant that the adapter could not be even mounted on the E-M5 body since the rear part of it might hit the mount or somewhere of the E-M5 body!

 

[HarryS]

My FD focal reducer hit the plastic shelves above the sensor on my EM5. The part that hits is the housing for the focal reducing lens, and that sits in a threaded mount. I loosened a set screw and rotated the lens enough to get clearance. Although there must be an optimal position for the housing, I couldn't see much difference when I compared my EPL5 and EM5. There's more clearance in the EPL5 so I checked it in the delivered position vs what I needed for the EM5.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Somewhat disappointing, but after getting the fit fixed, I've had a lot of fun with this adapter using my fd 50mm and fd 85mm.

 

[eddie design]

Thank you very much Harry. Your experience is very useful to me. One question, can you focus to infinity after you fixed the adapter?

 

[HarryS]

My better lenses (Canon FD 's) focus to infinity on it. I have some crappy 3rd party lenses I wouldn't use anyway, and they don't get to infinity.

 

[eddie design]

Thanks Harry. I'll try to adjust the adapter once it arrived. I also have some 50 and 85mm legacy lenses, hope this adapter will bring me fun.

 

[HarryS]

Here we are at the zoo with the Tak 135mm f3.5 mounted on a M42-FD adapter which in turn is on my Roxsen(?) FD-M43 Focal reducer. EM5 ISO 3200 1/320 "f2.5".

The tiger can leave the cage and go to a 30x40 meter outdoor viewing area.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[eddie design]

Nice photo, very sharp and not so "digital". Takumar I only got the 55mm F1.8, may try it on the adapter if the adjustment was successful.

 

[colbycheese]

On the recommendation from fellow member orfeo, I ordered a Roxen Canon EOS to m/43 speed booster about 2 weeks ago, and it arrived in Belgium this morning.

As a canon owner I already had a set of legacy to EOS adapters, so this seemed a flexible solution to me.

The speed booster itself arrived well packed and seems to be pretty well constructed, and came with end caps. No problems with mounting on the OMD.

As a first pass test, to get a feel for it I chose my M42 Pentax Takumar 50/1.4, and set up my faithful model, Harry the Head

First shot is with a regular adapter at a distance of approx 1 m

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

next is shot from same distance with speed booster. This shows the .71 change in FOV. A 50 therefore acts like a 35

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Finally I move the camera in to about 0.7m to get a similar framing

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Not sure of my conclusions yet, apart from the fact it seems to work fine as far as I can see. It certainly seems to have smoothed out the Bokeh wide open, and it does seem to give a stop of extra light, though the change in perspective is also noticeable.

Need to go do other stuff right now, but promise I will post more pics over the next few days

cheers

K

Wanted to buy one of these from roxsen on ebay. I wanted to get both the M42 and Nikon version. however i am worried about mounting on the EM10 because the ebay listing says this:

"The depth is about 7mm, may hit the sensor of some cameras such as G1. The optical glass may need to be adjusted for Olympus OM-D, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera, etc."

Would you have any experience with either one of these focal reducers that i wanted to buy and whether they fit on the EM10. I dont want to buy it for it to only end up damaging my camera.