It's available for many lenses. Take, for example, the RF 16mm f/2.8 – it's Embodiment 3 in
this patent application. Figure 6 shows the aberrations graphically, and the data used to calculate those curves are tabulated in the patent. Now, what are you going to do with those data?? My guess is that there is nothing you can do with them.
What you really want is someone to take those data and turn them into an algorithm that corrects the aberrations, or someone to test an actual lens using charts that enable measurement of distortion, CA, etc., and build corrections for them into a lens profile you can easily apply using your chosen software. In other words, you're asking someone to do something that requires time and labor...but you don't want to pay for it.
Sorry to tell you, that's not how the world works. Canon actually does provide those corrections for free, just shoot JPGs or use their software to process your RAW images. DxO and Adobe do provide lens profiles that work very well. Their software is not free, nor is it particularly cheap (relatively speaking).
Affinity Photo is relatively inexpensive, and relies on a free database that is built with input from the community. If your lens isn't there, you can
build the profile yourself and it will be added to the database. Their statement, "
Which method you choose depends on your experience and on the effort you want to spend," suggests they may include profiles generated by inexperienced people putting in shoddy effort, but that's always a risk with free, user-populated databases.
Not trying to be argumentative, but the bottom line is that you get what you pay for:
- You pay a lot of money for a camera, and Canon gives you the tools to perform software image corrections for free.
- You can pay for a relatively expensive RAW converter, for which experienced people generate high quality lens profiles to correct the images.
- You can pay for an inexpensive RAW converter like Affinity Photo, and live with the free database it uses for lens corrections (which is one of the reasons it's relatively inexpensive).
Personally, I chose the second option. As an example of the benefit, for the strong distortion on the RF 14-35/4L at the wide end, I find that DxO yields images that are sharper in the corners than DPP or in-camera JPGs, and the FoV is about 13.5mm instead of the 14mm from the Canon software.