Jeff Hanson wrote in post #17775264
I do own the 18-55, and was concerned that the 16-55 wouldn't be that much better considering how much I liked the 18-55, and how much the 16-55 costs. But after shooting with it for a few months, it is (in my opinion) worth the upgrade and worth every penny of its price tag. In fact, it may be the best overall lens I own of any system. The 18-55 is now permanently mounted on my X-E1, and the 16-55 is on my X-T1 about 75% of the time. I have a number of Fuji primes, and the 16-55 is within a hairs width of equivalent to them at every focal length. It is SHARP (even wide open) and being weather resistant gives me some peace of mind when I'm out in inclement weather. Only drawback (if size is a concern) is that it's a big lens in Fuji X terms, but still much smaller than a 2.8 constant aperture DSLR zoom.
Here's another image I shot with the 16-55 of the Lagunitas bottle that really shows how sharp this lens is. Shot wide open, this is just a b&w conversion with standard sharpening of the RAW file and a small clarity bump. Zoom in and look at how crisp that small lettering at the top of the label is where the lens caught prime focus. Giving the X-T1 props too, no NR applied at ISO 1600.
I was actually thinking you meant the XC 16-50mm 
The XF 16-55mm looks like one heck of a lens, way more than I need though.
bobbyz wrote in post #17775394
I would also like a nice zoom but f2.8 doesn't help in my case. I tried a co-workers 16mm f1.4 and that thing was super sharp at f1.4. So f1.4 is 2 stops faster. Of course it is only 16mm and won't help when you need the zoom. I wish Fuji had the zoom at f2 at least like the new Sigma zooms.
IDK, considering how massive the 16-55mm is compared to their other lenses, I don't think an f2 in that range would make sense. I also don't think a really short focal range like the Sigma 18-35mm makes sense either, but that's just my opinion. I'd personally rather just carry a couple of primes than a big, heavy and limited zoom.