I am very happy that Nikon has finally brought a UWW lens with a filter option onto the market. What's the point of a 14-30mm f2.8 for landscape photography if you have to spend another 1000 on a filter holder (without filter!) or do without long exposures?
Okay, for star photography an f2.8 or better would be useful, but I'd rather buy a 14mm Samyang for that.

I think it makes sense to offer the "common" lenses first, before offering lenses that maybe 1% of all photographers can use (although I still don't know what exactly you should do with an f0.85, the depth of field is so small...). )

Nikon is the only manufacturer that supplies its new mirrorless cameras with the workhorses first. Strategically, this makes a lot of sense, as the market offers the most here. Once the lenses are available, the special interests can be taken care of. The lens line-up for the Z bayonet is currently much more well thought-out than Canon's.

I don't see a leg kick here. You have to see what you get. I got the kit with the Z6 and the 24-70 f/4 and I'm blown away by the sharpness. One of the reasons for this sharpness is that the light no longer has to be bent to the same extent as was necessary with the smaller bayonet diameter.

You can do something about this - but it is time-consuming. You can see this very well in the tiny Leica lenses, all of which are very expensive - the optical corrections as an antidote for the rather narrow bayonet are not available for free. So in that respect the deal is sharpness versus speed - suits me very well - and that's also thanks to the large bayonet mount. Unfortunately, most photographers think that their pictures will be even better if they have even less depth of field.