Nikon came relatively close to Bernard's ideal launch lenses (the 70-200 is missing, and the fourth lens will be the exotic Noct instead of the 70-200 or something else with broad application like a wide prime or the 14-30 zoom). A good start. It looks like their expansion roadmap is relatively sensible, too. The first year of the system is supposed to include that 70-200, a relatively fast portrait lens, a wide prime, the 14-30, a 24-70 f2.8 (not sure I'd have duplicated a focal length only a stop apart in the first year) and the Noct. Most of those have broad application - hopefully, the quality will be excellent. Nothing on the roadmap is really long, but Nikon is a DSLR company, and anyone who wants a 600mm f4 probably has a D850 or a D5 to go with it (if you occasionally want to use it on your Z7, the adapter is a pretty good solution that preserves focus and VR).
Overall, a nice opening kit and roadmap that gets important lenses out quickly and adds some interesting oddities. I like the choice to prioritize f4 zooms over f2.8 at first - it preserves the size and weight advantage of mirrorless. I actually wish the first-year 70-200 were an f4 - save the f2.8 lenses for the second and third year (assuming the f4 lenses are optically excellent, and the difference to the f2.8 models is just a stop of speed, not image quality).
Looking at what other camera manufacturers have done (and are doing)...
Fuji went for classic rangefinder lenses (correctly changing the focal lengths to account for APS-C), added a little gem of an 18-55 (the only one on the market with decent image quality), and then filled in the line in a generally sensible manner. They have a high quality lineup - only a couple of duds (and they even label their duds XC instead of XF). The current Fuji line stretches from 10-400 mm with quite good coverage in both primes and zooms - anything missing (after the next couple of introductions) is an exotic (tilt-shift, fisheye).
The next two lenses fill some of the last holes. One is long and fast (200 f2 with TCs that get it to 300 f2.8 and 400 f4 - remembering the focal length conversion, that's roughly equivalent to 300/420/600 on FF, with the longer options being a tiny bit slow from a DOF perspective (although fast from a light-gathering perspective). The other is an 8-16 zoom that gets the widest lens on the system to 12mm equivalent - only Canon's 11-24 gets wider. Fuji's system is behind only the DSLR giants in comprehensiveness, and the quality is excellent. They could use a first-party fisheye (there's a Samyang/Rokinon), and a tilt-shift lens or two...
Micro 4/3 has a very comprehensive lineup, including some gems and some duds. There are even more options than Fuji, including a first-party fisheye that is one of Fuji's few gaps, and you can find a high quality version of just about anything you want, often after navigating three or four lousy lenses to get there. The real strengths are compactness and IS - there are quite a few pancakes with surprising image quality, the pocket-sized long telephotos have shocking reach and the Olympus 12-100 on the E-M1 mk II (lens and body stabilizing together) can be handheld at 1/4 second or even longer - or can shoot video with an "internal Steadicam". The weakness is that the same little sensor with a big crop factor that made those telephoto fields of view amazing and allowed the IS means that depth of field and noise are compromised. Most of the telephotos are f5.6 on the long end to keep them small - that's somewhat slow even measuring straight light-gathering and possible shutter speeds, and it's roughly f11 equivalent from a DOF perspective. People have worried about wide angles on the small sensor, but there are a couple of zooms that get down to 7mm for a 14mm FOV.
The exotics are missing, and some of the long ones may be impossible if you care about subject isolation. The depth of field equivalent of a 300 mm f2.8 on the little sensor is a 150 mm f1.4, and I've never heard of such a lens on any system (the APS-C equivalent 200 mm f2.0 is not all that hard - Canon, Nikon and soon Fuji all make them in decent numbers ). A 600 mm f4 would be a 300 mm f2, which IS actually possible, if difficult - Nikon once made a few in manual focus. Even matching the depth of field of a f2.8 zoom on full-frame requires a f1.4 zoom (impossible?).
No reason tilt-shift lenses wouldn't work - they'd require even higher mechanical precision than usual (maybe electronically controlled)? The other option if someone wants to get really creative is to use a tilting/shifting sensor! The small sensor means there's plenty of room, which is why the IBIS works so well. Many lenses probably have extra coverage, and the movements needed are small, again due to the small sensor. Could Olympus do this on the E-M1 mk III???
Sony began their lens lineups by smoking something odd... The initial lenses on APS-C were almost completely random, and the FF lineup didn't start much better. The FF lineup has matured nicely and is now quite comprehensive with many high-quality options, although there are still a few weak or missing lenses in surprising places. The 24-70 f4 is still the "Zeiss" that was released with the original a7, and is widely known to be inferior to most other lenses in that range. The widest first-party prime is 28mm, although there is a Zeiss Batis 18mm and a Sigma Art 14mm. The G-Masters have helped a lot. I'm not a Sony shooter, and I don't have close friends who are, so I don't know many of the lenses (does the relatively new 24-105 fill in for the weak 24-70?).
The APS-C lineup is still fairly random - a lot of cheap consumer zooms that don't do the sensors justice mixed in with a few nice higher-end lenses. Some of the weaker lenses are quite notably poor. At least one review of the 16-50 kit zoom that will be most people's first lens called it the worst lens they had ever reviewed, and one of the pancakes has been compared to a Lensbaby. Is the newish 18-135 which is showing up in kits the first stronger normal zoom? It would be hard to put together a nice Sony APS-C kit without using mainly FF lenses (and why not use FF bodies if you're carrying the larger lenses)?
Canon appears to have stolen some of Sony's smoking material and inhaled more deeply ... The APS-C lenses make some sense if you look at the system only from an entry-level consumer viewpoint, but not much even then. With the midrange bodies they have been releasing, these lenses make no sense at all. Two primes and four variable-aperture zooms with overlapping focal length ranges, with three of the zooms being f6.3 at the long end, with no lens over $500. One prime is a 22mm f2 pancake - not a bad choice - compact and a nice focal length given the sensor size. The other is a uselessly short 28mm macro lens - it's not quite a 50mm equivalent, it doesn't have the working distance to be a useful macro, and it's f3.5, limiting its usefulness as a short normal lens. Two of the zooms are meant to be the standard consumer pair (18-55 and 55-200), but have a couple of oddities - one is that the short lens (unusual), as well as the 55-200 (sadly, common) are f6.3. The second is that the short lens is 15-45mm instead of 18-55, which adds a nice bit of wide angle, but leaves a perplexing gap in the portrait lens range. There is an 18-150 travel zoom - the extra bit of telephoto over a standard 18-135 is welcome, our old friend f6.3 is not. The final zoom is another odd choice - it's an 11-22mm. They have that extra bit of wide on the standard zoom, so the only range in which the wide angle is unique is 11-15mm. Something like a 9-18mm would have been a far better fit here.
The initial lineup for their FF system doesn't look much better, although the problems are different. Two of the lenses make pretty good sense - the 35mm is a great choice, and the 24-105mm f4 is a good walkaround zoom (although quite a bit heavier than Nikon's 24-70). I would personally prefer the 24-70 to save the weight, but this is a matter of preference - either is a reasonable choice for a first zoom for a mirrorless system.
The other two choices are perplexing to say the least. A 50mm prime is great, but a 1 kg 50mm f1.2 prime doesn't go well with a small mirrorless body (at least not as the only 50 mm option). The 28-70mm f2.0 is ridiculously heavy at 1430 grams - it's between 1.5x and twice as heavy as common 24-70 f2.8 lenses. Why start the system with two big, heavy, expensive, exotically fast lenses? The 28-70 would be a nice exotic addition to a system that already had f4 and f2.8 lenses in that focal length range (it would be an interesting addition to Canon's EF system, for example).
