50-135 f2.8 dx range do exist but not by Nikon. Tokina have the 50-135 while Sigma have the 50-150 (both f2.8) they are all below 1kg.You are still stuck in history and FF mentality. To have meaningful discussion on this the FOV must be taken into account. For example, in medium format land we have 75mm/f2.8 as the standard lens, while 35mm we have 50mm/f1.4, with roughly the same FOV. Kinda like a cropped sensor when compared to medium format. We have the same FOV, and have f1.4 instead of f2.8, and significantly smaller size.
So your 200mm f2.8 is really the DX or DC 135mm f2.8, and look around, they are with filter size 52mm. Only when you are either stuck with FF (or FF mentality) that 200mm f2.8 must have 77mm, I can have my 135mm f2.8 with roughly the same FOV as your 200mm f2.8 and have a significantly smaller, lighter lens. May be sharper and more contrasy also. Light falloff will also be better as I now use the centre of the image circle. If the lens is made to DX format, ok the light falloff will increase but the lens size will drop. See the 55-200 DX, equivalent of roughly 80-300 FOV, but see the size!
And you can lug your monstrous 80-200/2.8 and I can carry a 50-135/2.8 (if such a lens exists) and have the same FOV. Herein lies the benefit of DX format. Now if you say your 80-200/2.8 in DX format would be 120-300/2.8 then the discussion is not on the same footing anymore, and you are right I will be stuck with the 77mm filter size. But let's compare apple to apple, and FOV is a must in such comparison, i.e. 50-135 DX vs 80-200 FF, they are roughly the same animal.
But such a lens (50-135/2.8 DX, mickey mouse size, $500) is unlikely to ever exist in the camera makers race to make the 1000x zoom lens. There is no glamour in making small zoom ratio lens. But I for one would love this 50-135/2.8DX if I am to restrict myself to the 80-200 FOV.