[faint]

Well, I think that's exactly what has been done lately by most producers? Compare the two versions of the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6: the first one was not as sharp as the second but had a lot less linear distortion; for the second version the inverse was true. Many comparatively recent lenses, even in the DSLR lands, have been made less corrected for distortion but with better overall sharpness than the older versions. The likes of the Nikkor 24-85 VR comes to mind immediately. And in most of the mirrorless realm, it's really gone laissez-faire (Olympus, Fuji, or that Sony 18-105 with the pincushion measuring upwards of 6% at some FLs...)

Yes, exactly! The issue is that sharpness has become the single most important parameter by which people judge whether a lens is good or not. This is how many lenses have been sold - people read a review on the internet, stating that Lens A is very sharp, and they go and buy it. Sometimes, the producers will go for record breaking center sharpness values, leaving corners well behind, just to break another resolution record. I can name few lenses myself that follow that philosophy, which I personally do not fully approve (making lenses that review well, but are unexciting to actually use).

While there are several lenses that made people happy with having nearly zero distortion, other types of aberrations seems to be even less important for the mass user. Having heard anyone mentioning that Lens X has a maximum value for astigmatism of 4% that Coma/RSA is almost perfectly well corrected, etc? Just few people are usually bothered by these things...

But I assume that's a bit of an off-topic.

By all measures, 8% distortion is quite a lot!