You can get the Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro for less than £500 used, and if you can find the fringer for £200 or so then it's still cheaper than the 80mm and leaves you with options. Tbh, I see no benefit to the L version of the Canon macro, the older 100mm 2.8 non-L will be optically the same and we have IBIS, you're paying extra for OIS on these lenses. AF might not be as nippy, but for macro you'll surely be manual focusing mostly anyway
Atm, I'm mainly hanging on to the fringer mainly for the 55-250 STM! A cheap as chips plastic mount lens
BUT, with the fringer attached, and it is 99% of the time to this lens, it adds a metal mount and it honestly feels as solid as the Fuji 55-200 I owned in the past. This lens is as sharp wide open at 5.6 250mm, I rarely have to stop it down, only when it's very bright out and it gives me better chance to get say, a full bird in sharp focus. But the lens also focuses a fair bit closer at 85cm and has much better magnification at just under 1:3 - impressive for such a budget lens. Where it does lag behind is with AF on the adapter. It's not perfect, I do miss shots, and it can be irritating at times. But I find with zone focusing I rarely miss, I use the spot focus area when I can take my time. It's not terrible in general for AF with this lens, just when you're going for pin point accuracy.
I have been thinking on one of Canon's macro offerings too, their 60mm is better than Fuji's - it does the full 1:1 without the need for any attachment [though I do have a Raynox that would convert the Fuji 60mm to 1:1 with the aid of a step up ring] - 100mm would be better, but I like smaller macro lenses, the difference in working distance is never as great as people think because the longer lenses take up that extra space mostly anyway. Also, I've shot bugs with a lens almost touching them and got the result