It's not sick at all! It's perfectly expectable when you shoot a 60mm diameter lens, containing no low dispersion glass, at the outrageous speed of f1.4.
That's a smaller diameter lens (47mm), and more importantly, a beam convergence which is less than half as steep (f3.2). The pixels are also larger, so the CA is less spatially resolved.
You're not comparing like with like. Try to picture the physics of what's being demanded of the lenses. If you need help doing that, that's cool - just ask us. What isn't cool is ranting about something before you attempt to understand it.
the effect of the 150/3,2 MF-lens at f/3,2 is comparable to the 85/1,4 35mm lens at 1,4, so it seems natural to choose this lens trying to keep a "look" when going from MF to 35mm. Both of them are "professional grade". The Hasselblad lens was designed when there was even no digital back available for it (and stands out better today), whilst the Nikon lens was designed at a time, when a 24MP sensor was available for testing. I care less for "beam convergence", I pay money for equipment and expect it to be good. And I would have payed 500,- or 1.000,- EUR more for if it contained a low dispersion element that made it more useable.
Giving me an explanation why a brand new 1.500,- EUR lens does not perform so well is a bit excusing Nikon from their responsibility.
Purple fringing is a quite common effect, the amount of CA in the center is new to me.
Maybe LR has the tools to correct also the latter. Already now or maybe in the future. That was the reason for my post.