The lenses themselves may be very affordable however if the robotic mechanism to precisely move them in and out of place when needed [for 2.35 material only, but not
for what in my use is the much more common 1.78 material], aka "Automatic transport sled", is not
affordable then they make no sense. I know the MSRP for one of the most common sleds is $2500 by itself, that's without the lens, not to mention the complex and potentially very
pricey ceiling mounting of the sled. Ouch.
What anamorphic lenses fix is hardly a problem in my book, not to say it is undetectable, and yes, I'm picky about my video. How they compromise the image if left in place for common 1.78 material, however, would drive me out of my mind, in seconds.
There is a lot of misinformation circling around about what anamorphic lenses do and don't do. The people who push these things have it easy by simply doing two things:
A) discuss the pros and gloss over the cons
B) link to older material as third party endorsements that praise the great improvements which were much
more relevant not too many years ago but have become less so as technologies (Blu-ray) have advanced. See back when we were using anamorphically enhanced source material, i.e. "anamorphically enhanced DVDs", and LCD/DLP pj panels that weren't all 16x9 shape and weren't all 1080x1920 , well yes, back then
they made a lot more sense.
Here's the only article. parts 1 and 2, that I can find that talks about it in some detail but unfortunately I can only find these archived versions so the articles' images may not work: