The demands on a camera lens is somewhat greater than the demands on an enlarging lens, because the visible light spectrum is considerably wider than that which enlarging paper is sensitive to. In my view the more expensive lenses fix other problems, such as field curvature, distortion and vignetting, to a greater degree than the three element lenses. Those are perhaps more important for ultimate sharpness and print quality than the apochromatic design. All paper will be sensitive to green/blue light, and if you can find a narrow band pass filter in that part of the spectrum it would make your results sharper. But that approach cannot fix all the other problems inherent to simple optical designs, and cannot make them look like $500. They will still distort, focus in a curve rather than a plane, vignette etc.
The above notwithstanding, I think there may be darkroom printers who derive enough benefit from such a technique to justify the hassle. For most of use, though, getting a fraction more resolution makes little difference. One has to optimise every part of the image making process to see it culminate in sharper images. That means sharpest lenses at optimum apertures, rock solid support and fast shutter speeds, optimal development i.e. non-solvent, very fine-grained film, and so on. And then printing huge, certainly larger than 16"x20". How many of us really give attention to the point of obsession, to every part of that equation? I doubt many. We all rather focus on the image and its message, and do the best we can under the circumstances with the rest. Some images succeed because of their resolution when printed large, but those are somewhat in the minority in my view. Other images succeed because they have general visual impact.