Many film scanners capture four channels of exposure data: RGB and infrared. Since developed film can block visible light but is more or less transparent to IR, that winds up being a pretty good map of where all the dust specks are. Which, in turn, allows automatic and very targeted software dust removal that can completely avoid parts of the exposure without dust, producing A quality of output more comparable to that of laborious retouching than inferior automatic software dust removal without a dust map.

IMO that alone is sufficient to justify a film scanner over a DSLR.

Yes, this does work well (and it gives you a bunch of options for rapidly extracting a lot of dynamic range out of a transparency.)

But you can maybe even use the lens from your scanner, if you can liberate it and mount it.

Film scanners typically have a thin strip that is often rather wider than a frame of film (because that was the way they achieved higher scan resolution at lower cost).

So what you have in your scanner is a tiny, sharp, fixed aperture lens with an image circle generally large enough for full frame.