There is a huge gap in primes between 85mm (105mm if you include the micro) and 400mm. 85/1.8 lenses are popular, but I don't understand why more manufacturers don't also have 100/2 and 135/2.8 (or f2.5) lenses in their lineup. Such lenses should provide faster aperture and as good or better image quality as the pro 70-200 zooms in a much smaller and more affordable package. I used the AIS 135/2.8 for many years, with a focal length mid-way of the AF 80-200/2.8 available at the time, it was a viable alternative in most situations.
There is also space for a 200/4 macro and a 300/4 but I guess Nikon have the latter covered with the F-mount 300PF.
Nikon have neglected this range of prime lenses for a long time; the 105/2, 135/2, 180/2.8, and 200/4 never got AF-S upgrades in F-mount and even the 300/4 took many years to get VR. There was the 105/1.4 which arguably can act as a replacement for both 105/2 and 135/2 as it is so sharp and fast, even in low light excellent cropped 135mm FOV equivalent images can be made without problems, but of course one could argue that by having a modern 135 mm, one could then maintain larger subject in the viewfinder and potentially crop further, when needed. However, in the end the 105/1.4 and 200/2 which are excellent and AF-S do service quite well, but they're not exactly compact or lightweight. I missed the compact and portable 180/2.8 and would have liked it to be AF-S'd. But Nikon seem to have put their priorities on the 70-200/2.8 and did not feel the need for other fast lenses in this range, I guess. Right, there is the 120-300/2.8, but again the portability advantage of the intermediate aperture primes is not reached with that lens.
I note the same behavior in the Z-mount system; there is a comprehensive range of primes from 20mm to 85mm in f/1.8 aperture (and 50 and 58mm as examples of faster primes to come in the future) and then macros at 50mm and 105mm, but the next prime is a 400mm! A whopping gap right there. Now, I am grateful for the excellent f/1.8 line which I think is very practical in terms of portability and of excellent quality. What is missing from the f/1.8's is a focus distance scale. I do not like the accelerated manual focusing but realized with my Z6 II in video mode that the manual focusing in that mode is very much slower and does not appear immediately as accelerated (did not study this in depth to see if focus ring positions are reproducible vs. distance within the power up period), so Nikon can control the lens manual focus behavior from the camera body, which means they can offer optional control of the MF speed also for stills in the future. The Z9 has a new custom function which allows this to be controlled. Hopefully it'll work across the lens lineup and also included in lower-end camera bodies. The Z 70-200 S already got firmware update to support this function.
I get it that Nikon's initial focus has been to take advantage of Z mount where it provides the most benefit, which is the short and medium focal length lenses. However, now that there are action-capable camera bodies soon available (Z9) and they feature high fps rates and fast autofocusing, silent photography etc. there is growing need for longer focal lengths to be added, which Nikon are addressing in the form of zooms (24-200, 100-400, 200-600, all with small apertures not really suitable for e.g. indoor sports or e.g. wedding ceremony close-ups from a further position; 70-200/2.8 does however work for this but doesn't quite give the subject background separation of the faster lenses when e.g. photographing full body images of people) and some primes in the roadmap: 400/2.8, 400/4.5 (guessing aperture here), 600/4 (guess), 800/6.3 (another guess) which should give a good selection for high-end (= heavy lens) wildlife photography but IMO it leaves a big gap in fast lenses for sports and longer distance shots in events. I get it that a 70-200/2.8 + 400/2.8 can cover things with some cropping or TC use in between but I've grown to love the faster primes in this focal range and I am unlikely to purchase a longer lens for Z until this is addressed. The 400/2.8 is overkill for me and likely very expensive, and the 400/4.5 is likely going to be PF whereas I'm prioritising out-of-focus rendering and prefer the conventional designs. It's like Nikon are jumping past my favorite lenses and ignoring them. ;-) Because I saw this coming I got the 300/2.8. It's very good but not quite as excellent in my opinion as the 200/2 II. I guess it's a subtle thing but I can't quite get the kind of magical results from the 300. It does have higher contrast than the f/4 PF but older VR and older SWM type, and no FL to reduce the weight in the front of the lens.
I guess the lenses I'd be most happy to see in Z mount would be 135/2, 180/2.8 and 300/2.8. I get it that the 200/2 is pretty exotic and it requires a certain commitment to use, but the 135mm's seem popular enough for C and S mounts, for portraits etc. and 300/2.8 is a very common lens in sports photography. I regret it when things move backwards in lens options, don't even let me get started about complete absence of native tilt/shift lenses in Z mount and most other mirrorless systems. I get that Nikon have put out new lenses very rapidly in Z mount, but they tend to concentrate around certain focal lengths. I guess they want to create what is "popular" but this creates a situation where all the major brands offer more or less identical products and then there is a variety of products that are ignored by all of them.