Convince me: 8-16 or 10-24 for my X-H2?

Money isn't the issue, but I do question whether I SHOULD get the 8-16 for my X-H2 vs the 10-24,  The pros in my mind for how I normally shoot (and I don't shoot really wide too often, so my wide lens won't get used very, very often), the 10-24mm appeals to me because I'm thinking 10 is wide enough and it's lighter and less expensive than the 8-16mm.  Filters aren't an issue because I don't use them very much, so don't let that sway your opinion.

I had the 10-24 back when I had an X-T1, long ago.  I remember it being a fine lens, but maybe could use some work optically.  Is the NEW version of the 10-24 (the WR version) the exact same optics as the old version?

The pros I see for the 8-16mm is that it's known to be better optically (of course), well corrected and can go just a bit wider if I ever do want that.

For the cost difference, I could get myself an extra lens (maybe one of the f/2 primes or something else sort of in the price range of the money I'd save by buying the 10-24 instead of the 8-16).

I'm just not sure. Do I want the best lens and it doesn't matter about the size/weight because it's not something I'd use super often?...OR would I be better off with something a little less quality optically, but more convenient in size/weight and some extra focal range?  I'm divided.

Let me know if you have some ideas for why I might want the 8-16 over the 10-24 in case there's something I hadn't considered.  I'd love to have the extra quality, but that extra range on the 10-24 WR does appeal to me...as well as the cost/size/weight. I could probably be happy with either one since I don't use a super wide lens really often. I can see the 10-24 being an advantage outdoors (due to the more flexible focal range) but I can see the 8-16 being a much better choice indoors when you just CAN'T back up from the subject/scene anymore to get more in the scene.