Best I can tell by reference measurements, it's similar in size to the old 400G, but maybe a hair longer, and fatter, so I'm thinking 4/400 at this point.
I think people need to get over it on the DT primes. Cheap Slow FF primes are dead. If you are buying a cheap slow prime, you aren't shooting FF bodies, you have an APS body and want a prime. Pentax has made this clear for years, and Nikon has started the same path.
A 2.8/30DT Macro is a great lens, It has the same effect as Oly and there 25mm Macro, or Tokina/Pentax and their 35mm macro. It's for APS shooters and makes more sense than a FF 50mm macro for them. It's probably very light too.
Same for the 1.8/50DT. They can make it small, light, and for what a FF version would have cost, they probably have made it with an ED element, maybe a ring motor. Good trade off. If you are looking for FF, buy the old 1.7/50 or buy the 1.4/50.
I'm not so sure the 28-75 is the same lens. It's shaped different, looks slimmer, or it's longer (pick one). David is right the front glass looks similar, but everything else doesn't. It almost looks like the distance window is at the front of the lens. And it looks to have a switch on it down lower. Sony may have done some serious re-work, maybe SSM, maybe they changed the front filter ring to a common size. It's a lens that should have been out when Sony launched. Sony probably lost many users because they didn't have such a lens. It could though be a in house design, just made much cheaper. If so, it's good for Sony, as it means they have done something C and N haven't, and that's offer cheaper versions of lenses with similar specs to high end. Yeah, Canon and Nikon both have their 24-70s. And APS lenses similar to the 16-80ZA, but the both have doggie-doo for FF cheaper lenses. What's not acceptable is the lack of the 24-105. This could be a rushed stand in while it went back to the drawing board. Still, it defeats the purpose, since those of us wanting one aren't looking for a cheaper lens over the 24-70ZA, we are looking for a longer range, slower lens for usefulness. I won't agree with DK about the C and N's. The Nikon 24-120 is longer lens, and yes, it's doggie-doo, but it's still not a 4/24-105 effort. The canon is loved by more than I see hated. But it's still a gen I lens, and is said to be replaced by a MkII soon. What they were able to do, doesn't mean much on what Minolta, Sony can do. Lets let Sony try it and base things on what they do, not what C and N did.
I think a full re-do to get off Tamron design could be the reason for the 55-200, or SSM the other. But it could be the simply wanted to clean things up into a nice matched set.
The whole new look here is odd. Sony worked to make all their lenses match, and here they go to very KM/Olympus look. I don't get it. Maybe silver band is to symbolize the cheap lines. And these lenses don't match each other very well. It's like sony ditched 3 years of work. Yet the same bad grips are their, smooth, and splined.