X-T1 to X-T4 Upgrade - Best General Purpose Lens

KariP wrote:

With X-T4 IBIS you do not really need OIS lenses.

In some tests ( like "Optical Limits" that i value ) 16-55f2.8 is optically not exceptional or stellar - or much better than 18-55.

it 16-55 is heavier and is a WR lens - but look at the price and weight first. It is an expensive big lens - is it really worth it?

Status value is of course a factor.

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do.  I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55.  Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography.  I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting.  I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different.  If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post.  I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55.  Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me.  I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form.  If anything, when I'm out photographing  birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.