you've said that before, but theres a 10.5 (OK its a fish eye), a 10-24, a 12-24 (constant f/4) as well as various zooms that start @16-18mm.
On top of that you do have the option of using the wide FX primes and zooms, although I realise you may not want the cost/weight penalty.
What do you feel is missing?
The 10-24 and 12-24 are great, no complaints from me about those.
There's no 16 1.4 or 1.8 (24mm equivalent).
There's no 23/24 mm 1.8/1.4 DX - most likely a 1.8, but either way would be a LOT smaller and cheaper than the 24 1.4. Even though it's one of my favourites, it shouldn't be necessary to spend or carry that much for a fairly standard FL
There's no 16 or 17mm PC-E - for this I could accept there being not a DX specific version (the desire for this FL and the image circle requirements mean people would mount the DX version on FX no matter what Nikon said, so they might as well make it cover FX) but it needs to exist.
The 17-55 needs an update (it's a great lens, but it definitely has areas where it could improve, and we know Nikon can do it)
There would ideally be a smaller 35 1.4 for DX, but I can see why Nikon wouldn't bother with one (insufficient demand for a DX specific one, especially as it wouldn't be as much cheaper/smaller than the current version as the 24s would be)
There's no 50-135 - while the 70-200s cover the range nicely and I'd get one in addition to rather than replacing it, it needs to be an option if DX is going to be more than it currently is.
Every one of those problems gets fixed by moving to FX, but there's a chunky weight penalty (less than there would be because the lenses I use now are FX anyway :bang:
)
I have to say I am pretty much a prime only shooter - the only zoom I use is the 70-200, so my opinion is very coloured by that. When it comes to standard zooms DX is covered about as well as FX, which if it's to be positioned as primarily for those who like photography but don't take it super seriously is fine. I do think that DX can be for those who take it seriously. If the lineup is filled out, it offers something significant over FX portability wise, and you lose virtually nothing in IQ except in the extremes.
The idea that everyone moved a size down with digital makes a lot of sense to me - DX does a lot of what 35mm film used to, FX does what a lot of 645 did, and MFD does a lot of what 4x5 used to. The prices for things also seem to line up nicely with that. It's only in the DX case where things aren't as good as they could be, and it's deliberate neglect on Nikon's part that is the cause - see micro 4/3 for what can be done with fewer sales in a shorter time period by smaller companies (the camera divisions of those companies, at least) for evidence.
I could be wrong and the market for 'proper' DX doesn't exist because people either stick with low end DX or move to FX with noone wanting and willing to pay for good DX but I don't
think I am.
Maybe wide dx primes?
I personally would like a fast dx tele zoom, but sigma and tokina have tried and the market didnt seem to want them...
Sigma's apparently worked quite well - the announced a 50-135 OS a while back but it hasn't shown up anywhere. With that said, if it's like the 70-200 OS vs the 70-200 VRs, there's still a gap Nikon can fill.