>>3392690anamorphic lenses compress the image giving you, depending on the compressing factor (standard is 2x), a wider horizontal aov while keeping the vertical. Matting on the other hand would keep the horizontal but changing the vertical.
Same fov:
>85mm + 2x anamorphic (3:2->6:2) = Vaov of 85mm, Haov of 42,5mm>matted: 42,5mm 3:2 cropped to 6:2 = Vaov 85, Haov 42,5A 85 1.8 lens has a much larger aperture than a 42,5 1.8 thus the anamorphic setup will always give you shallower dof.
The method of compressing the image creates oval shaped bokeh (oval lights and waterfall out-of-focus), as well as horizontal flares. Old anamorphic lenses also have serious barell distortion. Modern ones like the Zeiss Master Anamorphics have nearly no distortion and are coated so well to barely flare at all (~40.000$ per lens). Most anamorphic characteristics of old lenses are flaws but became something we became used to in films and therefore see as cinematic.
Budget version would be eg. an anamorphic projecting lens like Isco Ultra Star but first, its sold way overpriced now a days, second it has serious usability issues: since it was never meant to shoot trough the compression factor changes while focusing, close focus is only 1,5m (needs 0,x diopter to get closer) and you need to focus the projector lens AND the taking lens on the camera to match. Means focusing takes some time and racking focus is impossible. Single focus solutions cost 500€ upwards and consist of basicly to diopters in reverse. The glass element of the taking lens has to be smaller then the rear glas of the adapter and it can only be used with tele lenses to not vignette (like 70mm+ on fullframe). Making wide angle shots imposible. Because its heavy you need to rig it. Because it has no filter thread you have to make your own or buy and expensive clamp.
Avoid SLR magic (and anamorphic shop) in this regards. Their anamorphots are WAY overpriced and not very good, same goes for their single focus solution.
