I've used Angenieux Optimo Style Zooms on the past 3 projects and other than the amazing flexibility I've found the image to be very nice..
Cinematic image is most important for me, definitely trumps practicality but other than losing a stop and being slightly heavier than a prime lens; any aesthetic reasons why these are inferior to a good Prime lens?
Modern zooms like Angenieuxs are pretty close in image quality to good primes, but there's usually always some compromise to fit a whole range of focal lengths into one lens. The main aberration that zooms can't usually eliminate is distortion, so you'll find more barrel or pin-cushion distortion than you would in a comparable focal length prime. The Style series are a big step down from the Optimos in cost so they will have more compromises than those zooms, but they're still pretty amazing lenses, and if you like the image then that's what matters.
You're aware of the slower aperture and size/weight drawbacks, the only other potential issue I would add is that zooms require the back-focus and corresponding camera flange depth to be in tolerance in order to maintain focus through the zoom range. This can be pretty crucial if you are critically focussing at the long end and then zooming out to a wider angle. With a prime, if the back-focus or camera flange depth is off it just throws the lens focus marks a bit out, which is far less of an issue if only eye-focussing. As an owner operator all this means is that it's worth checking a zoom carefully before a job, especially if using it with a different camera.
In the long term, a zoom can develop wear that may impact image quality more than it would a prime, play in the zoom mechanics for instance that might cause focus drop-offs within the zoom range. It would normally cost a lot more to have a cine zoom overhauled than a prime, but then it probably costs less than having a whole set of primes overhauled, which is effectively what your zoom replaces.