Thom Hogan's lens survey

If you lump together the different apertures of each focal length, then the 16mm moves way up in ranking, and the 10mm moves down in its relative position. The 70mm starts to stand out as popular too.

Personally, I'd be more interested in a 70mm than a 58mm (and I'd prefer the 58mm to be bumped up to 60mm - a touch longer than a "true" 85mm FX-equivalent). I'd also be interested in a 24mm, but not in a wider prime (either 10 or 16mm). I'm also not much interested in those three zooms, with the possible exception of the 50-150mm, and even the 50-150mm would be a lower priority for me.

There seems to be two schools of thought, WRT the zooms. One school agrees with Thom that 50mm is a great break-point (in DX) for changing lenses between a mid-range and a telephoto. Others of us think that 50mm is a horrible place to have to change lenses; we want our "mid-range" to cover up to 70mm (or more) even at the cost of giving up the wide end below 24 or even 28mm. Thom's survey results are weighted toward the first school because the survey was of Thom's audience.

But yeah, it would be nice for Nikon to offer 8-16mm, 16-50mm, and 50-150mm zooms, plus 10mm, 24mm, and 58mm primes, with the 10mm maybe being replaced by a 16mm, and the 58mm maybe being replaced by a 60 or 70mm.

But one worry is what the wide-angle DX "speed vs price" tradeoff looks like. How much would a DX-only 24mm f/1.8 cost? $200 like the 35mm f/1.8? $400? $800? More? We might have reached the point where even if the wide DX lenses were available, people would be better off spending an extra $1000 for an FX body to shoot wide angle.