For the last couple of years, anamorphic lenses have become way more affordable, so in this video I break down the real differences between anamorphic and spherical lenses—look, workflow, and when each one actually makes sense. I’ve been using the Blazar Remus 35mm 1.5x on various projects (including a feature film), but for most of my work I still shoot spherical, and I’ve even shot two feature films that way. I explain what anamorphic actually is (the squeeze/desqueeze, 1.33x vs 1.5x vs 2x), and why it gives you that unique style: oval bokeh, more imperfections, and those horizontal flares people associate with “film” (for better or worse). I also go through the downsides that matter on a budget: anamorphic is still pricey, bigger/heavier, usually manual focus, and it can make things like IBIS and rolling shutter more annoying. Monitoring can be a headache too if your camera doesn’t support your squeeze factor (like 1.5x). Then I compare that to spherical lenses: more neutral and sometimes more “clinical,” but cheaper, smaller, easier to use, and way more versatile—especially if you’re delivering in 16:9 or doing vertical/social content. My main takeaway is simple: go anamorphic when you want a distinct look and you’re delivering 2.39:1; go spherical when you need flexibility, control, and the best quality per dollar.