>>2644751Yeah they work, I've got a set myself. Only problem is that if your film is quite curly you're gonna have a bad time since they make the DoF very narrow. What I do, especially for 120 is use masking tape to tape the edges down on a mini light pad.
>>2644757It depends whether your prefer convenience or quality. The macro lens/extension tubes gets you better quality but the Canoscan would be a much more convenient option although limiting resolution and flexibility. Honestly though if tubes are like $15 and the scanner is $30 you should try both if you have the money.
>>2644781RZ67, 65mm f/4.5
>>2644782H-hello
Here's a really close crop, can't remember if it's 100%
