I could be interested in the 24-120 as an everyday lens, but not at the price mentioned. While I dont shoot much at 2.8, it is good to have, plus it wont be much difference price wise to the legendary 24-70, and I cant see how it can be better. Maybe I am wrong too, but lenses are not at their best wide open, so a 2.8 lens will be better at f4 than an f4 lens... in theory anyway?
See no need at all for the 55-300... the 55-200 is a good low cost lens, they 70-300 is a very good lens for the money and not hugely expensive, unless Nikon feel they are losing sales to likes of Tamron.
Can the 85mm 1.4 be bettered? Hard to think it can by anything noticeable to the eye...