Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Personally, a 24-70 MK 1 (I love this lens, I couldn't better it and won't upgrade unless I absolutely have no choice in the matter) and a 35L.
I have the 24-70, but not the 35L yet. I've got a 17-40L too, which is nice unless you're in low light, an 85 1.8 which I love, and a 50 1.8 that I use quite often too. I've also got a 28mm 2.8 that I use on my 40d as a carry around normal.
Amazed that no one first asked what you shoot beyond what is in your port.
Starting point for me is what were the FLs that you used the most with the DX camera, multiply by 1.5 and start looking at glass with that FL, either zoom or fixed FL. Then start looking for recommendations of which specific lenses will best meet your needs and budget.
San Francisco, California, US
If you're staying on doing People / Portraits stuff ... stay around 35mm to maybe 200mm ...
Zoom lenses like 17-40mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and maybe 70-200mm 2.8 will make your photography life easier ...
Personally, I'm using primes most of the time ... so 35mm, 50mm & 85mm ...
I've learned my lessons, too many lenses, not enough shooting - so now I'm about 'keep it light, keep it simple' ...
If you do landscape & wildlife ... now that's a diff. story simce you might need something more specific (wider or longer mm)
I have and use the 24-70mm f2.8 Mark I, but if you don't need the f2.8 for any reason at all and happy to settle for f4, I would recommend the 24-105mm f4L IS because of it's IS capabilites (VR on your old Nikon ways).
Most everything in my port here was shot for fun. I shoot mostly action sports with a few concerts and nightclub gigs thrown in.
I'm looking at:
17-40 f.4 L
70-200 f2.8 L Mark I (used)
maybe adding a 1.4x or 2x converter if I've got the money.
Edit: Going to start doing a few more landscapes as well - that's why I'm going towards the 17-40.
Just a note on the 70-200mm, f/2.8, L Mark I
I recently did a lot of research on the difference between the Mark I and Mark II and have found that the Mark II is a lot sharper wide open at 2.8 at all focal lengths even 200mm along with greater colour saturation and contrast.
The Mark I isn't sharp wide open let alone at 200mm and the contrast and colour saturation isn't as great. I could have bought the Mark I but for an additional $800 bought the Mark II.