Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

This avoids distracting and annoying reflections!!

dubblenn

Try the 28-80 on the DX format camera. Works for me. No ext tube or scanner is necessary.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Use the 28-80 @ 50, and a 12mm tube ( IF you can buy it singly ) or a Canon 500D close up lens for the front. Otherwise, as mentioned already, shoot @ 80 and CROP.
.

oldrunner

Sorry, it's not a 28-80 it is the 2.8 28-70.

Abo

Probably the one that focuses the closest... for a 4x6 you won't need an extension tube.

You could get yourself a very close focusing 28-80G which is sharper than a scalpel, cheap
as chips off Ebay could even cost less than an extension tube.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311.R3.TR6.TRC0.A0.H3.Xnikkor+28-80+.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+af+nikkor+28-80mm+f%2F3.3-5.6g&_sacat=0

They do distort a bit... however that's easily fixed in the free
post processing program RawTherapee.

Edit: Heck! I just noticed you've got a 28-80... Preaching to the converted.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I have spent time copying and restoring old photos.

It is rather easy to use a scanner to copy small prints. 600 dpi usually captures all of the detail in the original. Scanning at higher resolution causes no harm but you won't get more information. 600 dpi will allow the copy to be printed at slightly larger size than the original. Some old (pre 1940) B&W prints are of very quality.

You can have success with a camera as well. Many cameras have sufficient resolution for small prints.
You will need a copy stand in order to get the sensor plane in the camera parallel to the image on the stand. Place a sheet of glass over the print to hold it flat. My copy stand has lights that are positioned so as to prevent reflections from the glass.

A macro lens should be used to copy your photo. Macro lenses have minimal pincushion and barrel distortion. For your Nikon the Nikon 60mm and 85mm macro lenses would be ideal. I think the 105mm would be a bit long for an APS-C camera but excellent for FF. You could buy a used manual focus macro lens for less cost.

Zoom lenses like yours are not very good as they often have quite a bit of barrel or pincushion distortion that goes unnoticed when photographing 3D subjects but may be quite noticeable in copying. You should NOT consider the 10-24 mm lens. The working distance will be too close and pincushion or barrel (depends on focal length chosen) will be terrible. You may be able to find a focal length on the 28-80mm (focal length >50mm) or your 80-400mm that has minimal distortion. when you find it use that focal length. You will need to photograph a piece of graph paper to test for distortion. You will need a set of auto extension tubes.

Personally, I would not bother you use the zoom lenses. Too big of a PIA.

At the end of the day you will find purchasing an Epson V600 scanner to be the best and cheapest option.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

As CHG CANON implied, do test shots with various equipment. I doubt you will find glaring differences. That's what's nice about processing. You can do so much to make the picture better.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I'd have to say that the best lens would be a macro lens. You don't have one.

I'm not a Nikon guy but I'd suggest you look at your lenses and see which one will allow you to focus the closest. If you have one that will focus on a subject that is a foot away or less, go with that one. It's pretty obvious that neither of your long zooms will work so scratch the 80-400 and the 200-500. But the 28-70 or the 10-24 might work.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

In this digital age, we can try all our options ourselves and decide what we like...

Cheer & be safe!

Onthecliff Loc: Four miles north of Boston, MA

Scanner is the only way to go. Don’t waste your time “testing” the ext. tube/lens combo. Scanners are relatively inexpensive and you’ll always have a need for one in the future.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

As far as I know, scanner software doesn’t have any resize algorithms which means if you had a 5x5 pixel image and you enlarge it to 2x you would still have 5x5 pixels but with a space in between them. So you are just adding noise. I feel it would be better to resize it in the post with a good app like PhotoShop, On1 Raw 2020, etc.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

Also, you didn’t say why you are scanning it? Just for archival? Joining to send it to friends and family thru net? Print a 4x6 or a 4 ft by 6 ft?

Generally, I agree a scanner is the best and fastest approach but for 1 print??? If you have a late model phone try using Google Lens or if your phone will do a raw image you can try it. Make sure it is as level as possible with no glare. Now you have an image to pp for emailing, Facebook, etc; print up to 4x6, or if you can PS or On1 Raw 2020, Topaz Giga you can resize it as large as you want. Totally surprising what can be done these days.

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

Most of those image enlarging software apps require a GPU with more power than the integrated GPU’s included with many computers.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

All but Topaz Gigapixel AI run fine on my mid-2011 iMac running high sierra, especially On1 Raw 2020. That is with no dedicated graphics card and only 512kb of graphics ram. I have 36GB of ram and MacOs uses that quite well for graphics. Topaz is the exception and almost all the Topaz AI products either don’t run or don’t run well for me. Then again with the number of complaints about them from people with 8gb graphics cards maybe it isn't the computer in this case.