Well I asked a collection of questions (to you) in this post:
but you have not answered. Should I take from this that you do not wish to enlighten me with information and thus leave me in a place where I can only but make assumptions?
Well, I thought Neuro answered them well enough. But if you want me to answer, sure.
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.
Actually, spherical aberration is an effect in three dimensional space.
If spherical aberration is so important and necessary to photographers then why do lens manufacturers go to such great lengths to eliminate it?
I think saying it's necessary "to photographers" is overly broad. I think the proper phrasing would be that spherical aberration is desirable to a certain class of photographers who understand what it is, how it affects their images, and love the aesthetic result. Again, check out the flickr groups for the 50L and 85L...they are packed with incredible photography that has a very specific look. Even the corner softness and CA is a part of the overall aesthetic that people WANT in those two lenses (and, actually, the 135/2.8 Soft Focus lens, which offered the same features as the Nikon 135 f/2 Defocus Control lens, albeit in a cheaper package.)
There is sometimes more to a lens than technological perfection. I think you may be missing that, and along the way missing out on the beauty of a LOT of photography created by avid fans of Canon's short portrait primes.
It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.
Of course. Nobody else is interested in lens that produce sharp images, have excellent colour rendition and contrast. Especially not a standard length zoom at 50mm.
I'm not saying every lens should have spherical aberration. I'm actually saying that not every lens should be a Zeiss Otus. The Otus also has a unique aesthetic, its beautiful, for sure. But it's different than the Canon 50L and 85L. A diverse set of options for lenses is a good thing. I think it's important that photographers have a choice...all those people who share their work on the Flickr 50L and 85L groups? What's going to happen to them if Canon just creates another Otus in the 50/1.2 L II? Or another Sigma Art 50?
If I recall correctly you like long telephoto lenses for birds, etc. Would you prefer a long lens that had the characteristics of the 50L or the Sigma 50/1.4 Art?
Long telephoto lenses serve a different purpose than a 50. I honestly do not think making such a comparison is relevant. As for the 50's themselves, I'd actually prefer to own both a 50L and an Otus. I love the aesthetics from both, and I see the differences between them as well.