Ricardo Palacios

I am new to this forum. I investigate traffic accidents and sometimes I have to photograph small things like the filament inside a headlight or tail lamp bulb. I was told that there was an inexpensive magnifying lens that goes over your regular lens. I currently use a Cannon Rebel T3 with a Cannon Zoom lens EF-5 18-55 mm lens. Any advise would be appreciated. Thank you,

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Likely a single element close up filter. Results are generally disappointing. Dual element filters are better as are extension tubes. Macro lenses are the best. Of course, the price goes up as the results improve. There is no quality, inexpensive solution here.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Following's Scott's comment, you might look at the brand new EF-S 35mm f/2.8 macro, or a used copy of the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. Both ideas will run in the $300 to $350 range. That said, the EF 12 II extension tube ($90) might be all you need to let your 18-55 focus closer like a macro lens.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The problem with extension tubes and that lens is that it's likely that any AF ability will be lost, when the lens is extended due to light loss and to manually focus an AF lens on an AF body can be tricky. Short of a macro lens, something like a Canon 500 D close up filter would be better suited as there would be no light loss. I'm sure that he will have to take images in less than ideal light conditions.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The EF 12 II extension tube supports all EF and EF-S lenses except a few lenses in the < 15mm focal length. Is it the best / right solution? I don't have hand's on experience with this tube (that I own and use) and the OP's kit lens to provide comments other than a suggested possibility for a cheaper approach that either of Canon's EF-S macro lenses.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Might also be an idea to look at a ring flash ! ie to light up the subject (when using an extention tube)

SS319

I have a Sigma 18-250 macro (as it were) lens that I use on occasion in the field to capture fiber bundles of asbestos at the broken edge of a ceiling or floor tile or cement water pipe. I justified the lens as a business expense.

warrenvon Loc: Ellicott City, MD

The use of auto focus. and macro imaging are not usually used together. Using auto focus while doing macro work isn't very useful. You should be using manual focusing especially since lamp filaments do not move.

You will find that there are two types of extension tube sets. those that support the full capability of your lens and those that do not!
Only buy the set that supports the full capability of your lens camera system. Auto exposure would be useful just to save some time.

Kenko makes a very good set for under $100.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Ricardo, you might look into macro filters. These attach, like any other filter, to the front of your lens, They are relatively inexpensive, but look for the better quality manufacturers, such as B+W, Hoya, etc. They are definitely less money than a macro lens would cost. Here's an article comparing the two.

http://illuminatedaperture.com/comparison-closeup-filters-macro-lenses/

--Bob

Leitz Loc: Solms

They're called close-up lenses (they don't filter anything, so of course they're not filters!). Any of them should work well for your purpose. You'll get some distortion in the corners, so you wouldn't want to use them for flat copy. Center sharpness is usually quite good. They are more effective at longer focal lengths, but with your camera 55mm should be adequate.
https://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=close-up+lens

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Please consider the Canon 500D close up dual element lens. I have one and it works VERY well. It will screw onto the front of your current lens. It comes in 52mm, 72mm and 77mm sizes. Just go to the websites below. I also use Xume adapters in conjunction with the Canon 500D and various other filters to make life easier. Bottom line, both products work & work very well.
https://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=canon+d+500+lens
https://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=xume+72mm+3.03%22+lens+adapter
https://www.manfrotto.us/collections/lighting/lens-filter-suite

Hip Coyote

If you are in the traffic investigation business, your actions could directly impact the outcome of high stakes litigation. For that reason I suggest you refer photography to a certified crime scene photographer or if not available (or you are a private enterprise) get some sort of certification so that your photographs withstand court scrutiny. That you want to use a "cheap" method to gather evidence is a problem. You need to be able to defend and explain your evidence gathering methods including the use of close up photography to a jury (or court). Such as, what the magnification is of your image, i.e. 1:1 or 1:2, lighting, etc. If you are going to take your own close up photos, I strongly suggest a macro lens with a ring flash. Understand everything about it so that you can testify as to what exactly the system produced.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Bingo !!! Our local Police dept has their own "crime scene photographer" that is a mandated officer as well...

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Ricardo: i believe what you are looking for is the Raynox 150 or 250. They clip onto the front of the lens and do not require a specific filter size. Several of us in the Macro section have/use this device. I think it would be ideal for what your intended use is.

FWIW, I also have all of the other options mentioned: macro lens, auto extension tubes, reverse adapters, closeUp diopters.

Best Allen

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's all well and good. However, PIs don't rely on official police photographs. They hire knowledgeable and capable photographers to document their investigation. In some cases, the photographs they use can refute those taken by CSI photographers.

Using a less expensive method does not negate the value of the photograph. If a $15 filter will result in a sharp, clearly defined image of a suspected component, what's the difference. Juries are swayed by clear images, and clear explanations of the process in capturing those images. They are not influenced by the price one paid for their equipment. In my years of working with a PI, I was never asked how much a particular piece of equipment costs. I was also rarely asked what equipment I used. The typical answer to questions involved I used a 35mm camera fitted with a __mm lens. This combination provided me the optimum ability to frame the image shown here. Additionally, I exposed the film using this ASA, shutter speed, and f/stop. The film was processed this many minutes at this temperature to obtain the optimum negative density to be printed as you see in this photograph. That was typical. Price was never an object.

Geez, after all these years I can still remember the typical pattern. Amazing. But, it was well drilled.
--Bob