After a shoot this weekend I've become less enamored with some of my lenses.  If I sold my 50mm 1.4af, 20mm 2.8D, 55mm 1.2Ai, and 17-55 2.8 I could conceivably get enough for a 24-70.  As an aspiring "working" photographer, would you recommend this route?  I've had one paying job where the 50 1.4 came in handy.  I've got a new FX body and DX backup and the 70-200.

The 24-40 Nikkor is a workhorse. As a Fine Art Photographer I chose the 16-35mm F/4 Nikkor over it. A bit sharper. A bit less $$ and I tend to shoot wider than 24mm more often than i shoot 36-70mm or need F/2.8. If you have the Nikkor 70-200 VR you would be good to go with either of those wide zooms. I also have the 50mm F/1.4 G but never use it. The 85mm F/1.8 prime I use for beauty work and outside when I want better Bokeh. I shoot the Nikon D800 and it is VERY picky on glass. Which FF Nikon do you shoot?

I've got a 600 and 7000.  I haven't had the 20 for long and have enjoyed it; I just don't see it being particularly profitable.  Maybe if I could get in with a realtor or something.  I know there's a big difference between 20mm and 24.

I own and use the 24-70mm on my D800 90% of the time. BUt if you don't need the extra stop. The 24-120mm F4 is also a great sharp lens.

I have the 17-55, and it is one thing that held me back (and a couple of other DX zooms that I really, really like) from getting an FX body when I was shopping last fall for a new body.

You won't need it with an FX body, and I dunno about the 20mm either, but I would certainly keep the 50 f/1.4 and 44 f/1.2

Sell the 17-55 and the 20mm and do a bake sale to make up the difference for the 24-70.

I have a good friend who was looking at Nikon's and Tamron's 24-70s at WPPI and chose to do a 30-day love-it or return-it with the Tamron, based on the cost difference... haven't heard how she likes it yet.

Compared to newer optics, the 20mm f/2.8D is starting to show its age.  It's one of the better D lenses as far as CA goes, but it's still there.  If you don't need the 2.8 aperture, many people will tell you that there are better alternatives out there.  I can't recommend any of them because I've never done an A/B comparison, but I do know there's more CA in the 20mm AF-D than newer lenses.

Your 55mm f/1.2 AiS is irreplaceable.  I mean yes you could always buy another one, and there are other lenses that are much sharper at a much better price, and there are other lenses with even nicer bokeh.  But that lens renders in a very specific way that modern lenses do not.  If you like using that lens, you will not get the same pictures with anything new.

I would ditch everything but the 55 (if you like it that is), and go for the 24-70.  It doesn't sound like you're doing a lot of really wide angle stuff now, and 24mm is plenty for occasional needs.  If you start getting jobs from realtors, you can worry about the wide angle lens issue then.  Maybe your funds will be different by then, or you come by a great deal on another WA lens between now and then.  No reason for it to collect dust until that day.

My workhorse lenses are the 35-70mm f/2.8 (two generations old) and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (current model). I've also had a 16-35mm f/4 lens for about a year - and used it once.

I use the 35-70mm (mostly the 50-70mm range) more than any other lens, and it's at least as sharp as the current 70-200mm. If Nikon would bring back the 50-135mm f/3.5 AIs as an AF lens, that would be my most-used lens.

Lately I find myself using two of my primes - the 105mm f/2 and the 135mm f/2 a lot. I rarely use the 85mm f/1.8.

If you don't need anything wider than 35mm, the 35-70 will serve you well. You can pick one up cheap (compared to a new 24-70mm) - and the 35-70 weighs a lot less than the 24-70.

I say go for the 24-70.  If you want to save a little (at the cost of weight and some CA) then go for the 28-70.

I agree with going with the 24-70.
I run it on my D800E and it's a really great lens.