Every time I think about selling my Nikon 24-70mm f2.8-- I do a few comparison shots and get so torn. There are times when it is not practical to bring all the primes-- the 24-70mm and 70-200/4 VR make a decent landscape kit. Consider throwing in the zeiss 18mm prime (which i know has mixed reviews here but I like), and perhaps a Nikon 85mm PC -- which will double as a macro lens.
My 24-70mm is pretty good on the wide end especially f4 to f8. THe edges and corners are the weakest regions but not bad for a zoom. With the zoom and all the pixels on the D800/810 can always frame a bit more liberally and crop. The distortion, which I do think is a bit of an issue cleans up nicely with standard software clicks these days.
Ok but then what about when just want to walk around and take some snaps--- well the Nikon 24-120 is good but when i compare to the 24-70 especially at the wide end-- well the 24-70 is considerably better in the 24-35mm range. The 24-70mm lacks image stabilization technology and is heavier as a walk around lens. Plus when walking around don't want to be changing lenses all the time. So lets leave the 24-120 out of the equation. It comes when i plan to do some walk around shooting.
Then I consider if i am going to be serious -- e.g. travel with a tripod my primes would include the Zeiss 18mm (more important now that the 24mm zoom is gone), Nikon 28mm/1.8, (maybe the Sigma 35mm ART), Sigma 50mm ART, Nikon 85mm PC, and the 70-200mm/4 (or if I expect wildlife might substitute the 80-400mm). Anyhow--- I am basically replacing the 24-70mm with the Nikon 28 and Sigma 50mm. So in terms of weight close enough but now I trade the ease of the zoom for the potential of a bit better IQ.
In reality, I rarely use my 24-70 but just cannot let it go. What is wrong with my logic and reasoning here?