I think the 16-35/4 is priced WAYYYY too high; I can get a 17-35 2.8 for $1700, why would I "save" $500 for a significantly slower lens? Makes no sense, unless they start coupling it with the D700 in a kit, or introduce an entry level FX body (which is where I see it making sense).
On DX it's useless.
The 24 1.4 looks great, esp the MTF's. . .but for the price, I'm not sure. . .they went in A LOT HIGHER, than I suspect, $400 more than the venerable 14-24 2.8. . .not sure how long/well this lens will sell/last. . .might end up like the 28 1.4 . . .I'll buy one in 5 years just before Nikon discontinues it, if not only to have a gem of a FX WA prime. . .for now, the 24 2.8 will suit, despite it's tendency to flare and ghost in low light (sigh), at $359 new (~$200-250 used), you get a great prime that works 90% of the time as well as the new one in well-lit conditions. . .