Reiszrie

I'm using the 18-135 quit a lot. It's just having the most practical lens always on the system. During hikes, bicycle trips etc. you can cover almost everything! Wide at 18mm till superzoom and great macro shots at 135mm! If I have enough space or going specific for landscape images I take the Samyang 12mm with me. Which is noticeable sharper compared to the 18-135mm.

Because of #1 I'd also suggest the 27mm. Great fun lens to shoot. I always take it with me when I have no plan of serious photographing and end up photographing more. So small, sharp and light and not expensive when bought secondhand. 
 
Next to that I'd also suggest the 18-55 + 55-200 if you want the best quality. Personally I also use the 18-55 range more and that lens is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 18-135. But if you're buying a weather resistant Fuji and think you'll shoot in the rain sometimes the 18-135 might prove its worth.

10-24 is a great lens... and not only do you get a wider lens than say the 14, but you get the OIS. I was shooting at night recently and took a handheld shot at 2 seconds. Ridiculous of course... and even though looking closely it is a bit blurry, it is useable. Lots of people enjoyed it as part of a slideshow. 
 
10-24, 35 and 55-200 would make a solid kit. I couldn't help myself though... I would also add the 26 and 23 ;-)

I hear you on the weight difference but I have found that weight bother me less with Fuji system. I have big shoulders and I rarely notice the load with any 3 lens in my Tenba DNA 8 what is more important is can i get 3 lens in there and still have any lens on the camera at any time. The minute I have to swap a lens just to get it all back in the bag is when I get frustrated. Everyone is different.
 
With the 10-24/35/55-200 it all works. Granted the 14/35/55-200 would also work well and be lighter, but you would be giving up a lot of versatility as I see that lens as a 10/14/18/24mm primes.with what i shoot I would rarely go below F4 at those focal lengths so Aperture is not a priority scuse the pun.
 
35mm gives me something bocalicious and is just a great walkaround lens and 55-200 rounds it all out in the long end and aperture is not important as compression at longer focal lengths tends to take care of subject seperation without relying on bokeh.
 
However I am getting more and more tempted by an all prime travel kit going really simple so a 14/35/90 setup is mightily tempting Obviously the rolls royce version you take the 16mm and 35mm F2 and be fully weather sealed. I would probably stick with F1.4 though as I will never sell that lens and I can't justify 2 in the same focal length just to have WR, come on F1.4 mk ii with same optics faster AF and WR don't care if its slightly bigger its my favorite lens.
 
FROD on the subject of ultrawide, thats why I like the 10-24mm ultra wide relies on you being super close to work (bizarrly) I would never wnat to be caught with only somethign super wide on teh camera (and I only have or want 1 body) I tend to use the 10-24mm at 24mm or 18mm most of the time, but its great if the situation allows and I am in the right place to be able to have 10/12/14 to call on when I need them. Horse for courses though.
G
 
G

Your going to get a lot of opinions on this I like the 18-135mm and if you have kids with you when you travel buy it.
 
Basically my recomendation would be 
 
Wide 10-24mm - it not that much bigger than the 14 and 16 and it gives you so much more, its a great great lens.
Normal - 35 F1.4 (great low light option) 18-55mm or 18-135 to be versatile
Tele - 55-200 best bang for buck in terms of sharpness and reach. Slower AF than 18-135 and not as well stabilized.
 
Personally I would go with the 35mm F1.4 option above Its a small kit you can fit in something like a Tenba DNA 8 you have coverage from 10-200mm and you have a low light option. You have 2 portrait options in the 35mm and the 55-200 at 90mm is very nice starting to get compression but also still have some DOF effect. You also have 2 street options the 10-24mm is great at 24mm and the 35mm is born for the street, just use it stopped down and any AF issues go away.

10-24 if you're into landscapes primarily is a no-brainer. And 24mm is great for street photography and general use. Add one more fast prime and you're good to go. Less is usually more when travelling...

As a travel and stock shooter my mainstay bread winners are the 18-55, and the 16mm 1.4  I also own the Zeiss 12mm 2.8, 23 and 35 1.4, and the 55-200 which is an amazing piece of glass.  However, the first two -- the 18-55 and the 16 1.4 are my "never leave home without them" lenses.
 
As a matter of fact in six weeks I head out for ten-day stock shooting trip and those are the first two lenses I will pack even though I told myself I would try to shoot this trip with primes only.  Ha!  How'd that work out???  
 
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 
Good Luck.

If you want to go ultra wide it is very hard to beat the 10-24 F4 at the moment, great lens, and the OIS is just pure gold, allows around 4 stops of stabilization. I have taken shots at 1/15 of a sec hand held and the picture still came out sharp.
 
As for the 18-135, it's ,my personal, most used lens. I travel a lot to places where changing lenses is very inconvenient, thus that super zoom lens is about my best friend, the WR and 5 stops OIS makes it very easy to use even on the longest range.
If I compare it to any other of my Fuji lenses, it's about the worst IQ (10-24, 27, 35 F1.4/F2 and 60) among them, but I still use it the most often because of the practicality of it.
But as Nero said, there could be some QC issues on that lens, I have seen shots taken with it that makes me wonder if the guy is actually able to use a camera at all while others are perfectly fine with their lens. So your millage might vary.
Best advice, buy it from Mamazon, give it a try for 30 days, if all goes fine, keep it. If you have issues, send it back and ask for another one.

In my opinion, the 18-135 has some quality control issues compared to other Fuji lenses. Some people swear by it as an incredible lens and their images back it up. Personally, it's my least used lens, even when traveling, and find that I have to use the dehaze tool way too much for my liking on any landscapes with some real depth to them. It just loses contrast like crazy in those situations. Also, the bokeh is not very good. That's to be expected from a slower zoom, but it's just not there. Perhaps those quality control issues have cleared up, I bought mine very early after the initial release. Not sure. Where it shines is the image stabilization. I've shot it at f/5.6 inside Mammoth Cave, half second handheld. All that being said, it's still miles ahead of the 18-135 kit lenses that other camera companies put out. Even if I had a good copy, 135 doesn't quite cut it for the long end of the range for me. It's all about versatility.
 
My 55-200 has none of the issues that my copy of the 18-135 shows. Beautiful lens. The autofocus is a little slow at times, but for landscapes that's not really an issue.
 
The 18-55 is a great lens too, but since you mentioned that you like wide angle lenses, I think the 10-24mm is an obvious choice. If you like to shoot cityscapes at night with some action or you like to have the extra range in your depth of field for miscellaneous other shots, then the 16mm is one to consider. I own both and they each have their purposes. It's a great combo to own if you like wide angle lenses. But to start with, I'd pick one or the other to match your needs then consider adding the other later. 
 
For the primes, it kind of depends on what you go with on the wide end. If it's 10-24, then one of the 35mm lenses. If it's the 16, the maybe consider the 23.
 
My favorite kits depending on where and what I'm shooting are either 10-24, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200 or 16, 23, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200 with a Pro2 and X-T1.