Number of geometrical isomers when a cyclic ring is involved along with axis of symmetry
The answer in your textbook is correct. Here are all possible isomers:
 
I added a symmetry axis to the right, so you can see that these compounds are mirror images and are not superimposable. The formula you used for calculations is too complicated. The way to calculate it is simple: there are four stereogenic centers so: $$2^4=16$$There is one axis of symmetry so:$$16/2=8$$Have more faith in your books:)

EDIT:
Because my answer has raised an interesting discussion, I will try to present my point of view. First of all, the cis/trans isomerism is a descriptive way to represent a stereochemistry of a molecule, but its scope is limited. It is useful for teaching organic chemistry, but not for a systematic nomenclature (especially for a ring chirality). I think that the main source of confusion here is understanding the difference between a local and global (absolute) stereochemistry. In the above picture the controversy is whether the four enantiomers in the two rightmost columns can be treated as geometrical isomers. Let's simplify the problem and consider 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane:


The situation is clear for the first two isomers (a and b) - these are geometrical isomers, no doubts about it. What about b and c? We see that in both isomers the methyl groups are in the trans orientation, so one may conclude that they are not geometrical isomers. Period. However, cis/trans notation describes only the local geometry (E/Z notation obviously cannot be used in this example). Isomers b and c have the same relative orientation of methyl groups, but in a global scope these are two different molecules, and thus two different geometrical isomers. Therefore, 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane has one cis and two trans isomers. This may be counterintuitive at first, because there are no such situations in case of double bonds, where the cis/trans notation is more frequently used, but in rings we have an additional layer of complexity. I am aware that some people may disagree with this explanation, but as far as I know there are no official (i.e. IUPAC) directives to resolve this controversy.