Rankes 'bloss zu zeigen wie es eigentlich gewesen' is the core for your (and a historians) 'as it was'. Now, calling that an anachronism is in the light of Ranke a bit weird.

In 'as it was' histories, we are trying to recreate a (not the) picture of the past as best as we can, based on sources from that time. We are not using terminoligy or whatever out of historical context, we are simply holding historical sources to nothing but its own light. That is the basis of historical science and if done the right way, it is not anachronistic.

Aren't those kind of the same?

There has been some confusion about the question, so here is the question phrased differently:

I should have been clearer (also i elaborated when I made the post, but apparantly the sub doesn't allow for anything other than a title): If one takes the standpoint that trying to see a period in its own context is impossible because of one's own theoretical baggage, then the act of viewing a period "as it was" becomes an anachronism, or at least bad history, doesn't it? That is if one take that standpoint

The concept behind this question is the always already