It seems most of the forum commentary on the Web at the moment centers around Nikkors, not Nikon DSLRs (the D3s's "see in the dark" capabilities notwithstanding).
Nikon themselves have just published a new tool that allows you to see the available Nikkors graphically. I wish I had thought to lay out my own lens graphs the same way, as it is quite revealing. Start with FX and Primes selected, for instance (and turn off the thumbnails for the moment). What you see is essentially four "lines" of lenses: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, and f/4. The f/2 line is particularly interesting: it has no recent lenses other than the 200mm, just a series of older lenses. The f/1.4 line is one new and one old lens. The f/2.8 line is two recent macros and two recent teles, but everything else is older. The f/4 line is the most up-to-date, but still could use replacements at the low end.
I'm predicting 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm f/1.4 lenses to be introduced shortly. That would completely refresh the f/1.4 line: it would be the only line to be all current lens designs if I'm right. This still leaves a lot of FX primes that could use updates, but at least the FX prime lineup would be remarkably full with a wide range of options.
So now click over onto DX primes. Where'd all the lenses go? You can see a bit of Nikon's thinking here. The lenses are actually in order of introduction, left-to-right. Wide. Then normal. Then telephoto. Still, a very random set of lenses. I think the next DX prime will tell us something very useful. Given the pattern on both axes so far, one might predict a 60mm f/1.4 being next. By the way, the 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro started shipping last Friday and should be in stores as you read this.
Okay, let's go to DX zooms. Well, that's pretty clear: the variable aperture zooms cover a wide range and have lots of overlap. We don't really need anything there. But look at that lone 17-55mm down on the f/2.8 line. Sure could use a 55-150mm f/2.8 VR sitting next to it.
Now pop over to FX zooms. Like DX, lots of overlap, though on close examination we find a lot of older lenses (17-35mm, 24-85mm, 18-35mm, 24-120mm, and 80-400mm stand out). The f/2.8 line has continuity of new lenses across the board (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm). I'd bet those lenses are now set for awhile (that means I'm guessing that a 24-70mm VR is not coming). But I wouldn't be surprised to see a new lens range hit that mark (e.g. 16-36mm).
The chart masks the fact that Nikon doesn't have any constant aperture zooms other than the f/2.8 ones and the 200-400mm f/4. And click on the AF-S button to see what happens to this chart. See the problem? The aging and not-so-great 24-120mm is the sole provider for a big chunk of the chart. That lens needs a replacement (or replacements) stat.
Meanwhile, it seems that the number one topic of discussion on the net at the moment is the new 70-200mm VR II. Lower vignetting. Sharper in the corners. Better VR. But it loses focal length as you focus closer. That last bit has a lot of folk howling (at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length). There are pluses and minuses to that last bit. The VR II is sharper close up than the VR I according to reports I trust. But it does mean that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance. How much closer? Well, if I'm calculating correctly, no more than 2.5' in any condition (but again, perspective will change if you move).
Let's deal with one aspect of the howls of protest: that Nikon is marking the lens deceptively. No, they're not. The standards that all the camera makers use for marking lenses states that focal length is defined by the distance from the rear nodal point to the focal plane when focused at infinity. The standards also allow for a lot of rounding, which means you can claim a 190mm lens is "200mm." This is why we can pick up five lenses marked "200mm" and get five slightly different results, even at infinity.
Things get worse at closer distances. Optically, you have lots of decisions to make. It appears that one of the decisions the Nikon designers made was to try to improve close focusing performance. In doing that, they also shortened effective focal length by an amount large enough that a lot of people have noticed (much like the 18-200mm controversy a couple of years back--it does the same thing at close focus distances).
At issue is whether the design change between the original and new 70-200mm is significant in practice. I can't say for sure yet, as I haven't fully tested the new lens and won't for a bit yet (I've got too many other things that you've been asking for me to finish first). It strikes me, though, that the primary thing that is being compromised here is perspective. For very close subjects, you're simply going to have to move a bit closer with the new 70-200mm. That's going to give you better sharpness, brightness, and less vignetting, but it's also going to change your perspective. The unanswered question is whether this is enough to cause real issues for most photographers. My guess is no, but it's only a guess at the moment. Bottom line: the new 70-200mm is going to change some working habits somewhat (you're going to get closer to near subjects), but that doesn't make it the terrible update that some seem to think it is.