While I agree with many of the points that the OP made, I want to share my disappointment with this lens based off of many images that people have posted in addition to the Lenstip review.
I never expected this lens to be perfect. Any 5x zoom lens is going to have to make compromises in order to maintain low weight and cost. I'm particularly disappointed in this lens' performance on the wide end. The 15-45 is noticeably better (and as someone else pointed out, the 15-45 and 16-80 Lenstip reviews are comparable). For my landscape photography, I want images that are sharp corner-to-corner wide open. I don't care so much that the lens if soft at 80mm because the 16-55 and 18-55 lenses don't go to 80mm. I can accept compromises on the long end if it means getting access to the long end.
What's disappointing is that it's clear that other manufacturers have been able to produce high quality zoom lenses. On M43, Olympus has hit it out of the park with the 12-40 and 12-100 zooms. In fact, the 12-100, with a longer zoom range, is sharper both wide open AND at the long end! For FF, Sony's 24-105 and Canon's 24-105 are both highly regarded lenses. Remember, all zoom lenses require compromises, and obviously none of the lenses that I am listing from other manufacturers are as sharp as primes that you can get for their systems.
I'm a landscape photographer who is seriously considering switching to Fuji. There is a lot to love about the system. But I'm struggling with building a compact setup given the options for zoom lenses. The 18-55 is excellent, but lacks weather-sealing, and isn't as wide as I would like (16 vs. 18 is a big difference for me). The 18-135 has weather-sealing, but is a very mixed bag optically, and again doesn't have 16 on the wide end. The 16-55 is an amazing lens, but lacks OIS, and is heavy. For landscape, I don't often need f/2.8, and I also don't want the increased weight of the X-H1 versus the X-T3. I was hoping that the 16-80 would be MY "perfect lens" (quotes here to signify that these decisions are personal, this is the perfect lens for ME) in the Fuji system, but it clearly isn't.
I'm seriously considering switching to a M43 system because those Olympus zooms that I mentioned fit my criteria. Fuji makes incredible prime lenses, but for MY needs (again, your needs may be totally different), the zooms just aren't cutting it. A better 16-80 would have been awesome! A 16-55 with OIS (or X-T3/X-T30 with IBIS) would be helpful. An optically better 18-135 would be helpful too.
Apologies for the rambling.
My thoughts exactly. I am a landscape photographer and hike great (mainly mountainous) distances to my shooting locations. I have learned to get on with the 16-55, in spite of its heft. It's not really as bad as I once imagined it would be, but it does bother me that I'm toting around so much weight for an APS-C system.
For months, the 16-80 release was going to represent my entry into the system but I capitulated far sooner. Yesterday, I returned my second (and last) copy of the lens. I don't ever intend on re-purchasing a lens I had returned -- it's unfair to retailers. My uncharacteristic decision to do so speaks to how much I wanted this lens to work -- it has a lot going for it. I wondered if my first copy was a lemon and the second one would behave better at the wide end. Unfortunately, the performance of both copies was consistent. They both did everything right except perform at the wide end. All I was looking for was acceptable at 16mm. Like you, I was indifferent about its performance at 80mm, merely grateful it did it. Since most other mid-range zooms don't even cover this focal length.
The second copy came with the latest firmware installed on it (1.02) and here is it vs the 16-55 at 16mm. I took these handheld.
In the mid-range, it's a lot better. These 2 sets were taken on a tripod.
It's a shame the details are so smeary at 16mm. As much as I love taking compressed landscapes with the telephoto end, 16-20mm is my bread-and-butter focal range. I think for many other applications (beyond landscape) this would be a fine lens. To those shooters not afflicted with the pixel-peeping disease, it would work well for just about any subject matter.
