Thinking of what would be a good combo.Prime interest is travel and indoor portraits.

(From your gear list, you seem to buy what everyone else does.)Humor in that statement.Do you really have to have a 2.8? Yes the Nikkor 24-70's are top of the pack, they are also, (like every other 2.8 zoom) rather large & cumbersome to carry.Buy an old Tamron 24-70, AF-D/3.3-5.6 for $79.00 and compare it to zooms costing 10-15X the price.In my case, a quality, 17-35 & a 70-200 is a far better combo. Fill in the difference with a 50/1.8 or a 60 Micro.Unless you have to have the Nikkor "Mini Baseball Bat" or it exactly fills your needs, be forewarned.(I've messed with every 24-70/85/120, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron & concluded it's a worthless focal range.)However, I do love my $79. Tamron.

Jhaakas wrote:Thinking of what would be a good combo.Prime interest is travel and indoor portraits.I have a D750 and a 24-120. I wanted to use the lens for landscape photography but found that it wasn't sharp enough in the corners ; I went to a bunch of primes.Now it may be pretty good for portraits since they usually don't have anything in the corners and f/4 can give you reasonably shallow depth of field if you're at 100mm or more. But I use either an 85mm or 105mm prime for portraits so I don't know."Travel" is a pretty big category. I don't take a big DSLR when I travel. I guess the D750 would be decent but I don't know if it would be a worthwhile improvement on an FZ-1000.I would not recommend an FX camera with a 24-70 for either travel or portrait use. There's not enough telephoto for either application.

I'm a happy camper with the Nikon 24-70E VR on a D850 for landscapes. Very sharp and very versatile. But I would always want to combine this with a 70-200 (f/4 or f/2.8) for some reach and maybe a UWA <= 20mm.The weight and the size of such a combination is something you should think about. It's quite big and heavy.I personally think the 24-70 focal range is a very handy range for city and general travel but I do not like it too much for events and portraits. But there are a lot of wedding pros using a 24-70 as a bread and butter lens.I never shoot the 24-120 and therefore can't tell you about sharpness or other properties, but it's a very good focal range for traveling and landscape if one will only bring one lens. It's also smaller and lighter than a 24-70.For portraits I would buy a prime as second lens. Either a nifty fifty (Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for example which is stupidly cheap, 58mm f/1.4, Sigma f/1.4, ...) or something in the 85mm range (85 f/1.8 from Nikon or Tamron, Nikon 85mm f/1.4, Sigma 85, ...). Depends on your portraiture taste and of course your budget.As alternative if you go with a 24-70 you could pair it with a 70-200 f/4 as second lens for portraiture. 200m f/4 is pretty decent for portrait work and it seconds wonderful as a telephoto landscape lens.Or completely different approach would be going with primes only. 24mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4) and 105 f/1.4. But then you don't have something in the 200mm range and a 300mm is maybe a bit too much.Just rent a 24-120 and a 24-70 for a weekend and try to get some landscape and portraiture comparison shoots. I'm pretty sure after this you know much better which is the right for you.

I have both the Tamron 24-70 2.8 and the Nikkor 24-120 f4. The 2.8 is heavier and less versatile for what you're looking for so unless you need it, I would suggest you go the f4 route. The f4 is a decent lens and I use it for events, but not paying clients for head shots (85 or 70-200 for that). The Tamron is sharper and of course has the extra stop. But the range of the 24-120 is really nice. So if you really want to carry the DSLR with a good walk-about lens, that'd be a better choice than the 2.8 IMHO.For travel, I leave that stuff home and use either a mirrorless E-M1 with a 24-70 equivalent, or more often lately, just my RX100 Mii.

Thanks all for the feedback.. looks like I need to have a lighter camera for travel and the FF for dedicated needs

Jhaakas wrote:Thinking of what would be a good combo.Prime interest is travel and indoor portraits.My travel lens for the D750 is the Nikkor 28-105mm. Pre-VR, so it's light and tack-sharp. I also sometimes carry the film edition of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.  Both combined are lighter than any single 24/28-70/80mm I've owned, and in some cases sharper.

Jhaakas wrote:Thanks all for the feedback.. looks like I need to have a lighter camera for travel and the FF for dedicated needsNo you don't, just find a pre-VR lens and you'll have a very light travel combo. The glass adds weight, but so does VR.

Jhaakas wrote:Thinking of what would be a good combo.Prime interest is travel and indoor portraits.Once out of many times I went to San Francisco with only two lenses. Canon 24-70mm and Sigma 12-24mm. I was everywhere and only in one spot I wished I had 300mm and I used Sigma only once.Now I would take the same Sigma or Tamron 15-30mm (much heavier lens) and Nikon 28-300mm for travel. For indoor portraits 24-70mm or more likely primes like Sigma 85mm F1.4 or new 105mm F1.4.Nikon 24-120mm only starts being good at F5.6. I use it for the red carpet photography because DOF and bokeh do not concern me.

Sorry that I did not mention;(The older Nikon 28-105 is excellent, even on 36mp.)

70mm for me is the point when headshots only start looking normal.I can understand why you'd think a 24-70 would be good for travel and around the house on people but I think it's more of a lens on groups of people than individuals.