Shutter remote.

Usually when people speak of "wireless" they mean ones that use RF. Those require screwing into the same shutter release port I am addressing.

The infrared remotes are built into cameras like the D3200 and D5xxx. They are always there and ready to go, and these Nikon cameras have the ports both front and back. So you just pick up the remote, set the release mode to remote, and fire when needed. No need to hook up a cable or lug around a thing connected to your camera. I used to keep the little release in its supplied holder on my camera strap. Also no searching around for where you last put the cable or wireless.

The probably cost Nikon about 50 cents to include. I can't imagine why they leave it off the D8xx. I don't know if they leave it off the D6xx. My D7000 also had it.

Hope they do fully articulated screen like the D5xxx instead of just tilting. It is more useful for things like selfies and using on a telescope. The tilting screen is a help for low and high angle shots. I have one of those on my Sony NEX-7 and don't use it nearly as much as I used the articulating one on my D5100.

IF they include infrared trigger I'll have a GAS attack. The thing I hate most about my D800 is that it has no infrared trigger and the screw-in external trigger is the worst design I have seen in a long time. You can't get your fingers around the nut to screw a release into it because the lens is in the way. STUPID! Plus, even if you could, it is greatly inconvenient to have to screw something in each time you want to use it vs. just grabbing the remote and firing away.

You won't have a vignetting problem if you buy a "thin" CP. I use a Murami thin. Excellent reasonably priced CP...about $90 for the size of the 16-35...which also happens to fit my 28-300.

But if you shoot a real clear and blue sky at the low zoom end with the sun at 90 degrees you will see a difference in the effect across the sky. For me that is rare and if offensive I can fix in post processing. But I hardly ever need to. The CP is useful in a wide variety of situations not involving blue sky.

That is a very pertinent comment. Too many potential buyers think that DxO labs tests are relative to the real world rather than a lab. Having spoken to buyers of D7100 and D800 who were initially disappointed with their camera but whose buy was heavily influenced by Dx0 it is easy to reach the conclusion Dx) should heavily qualify their recommendations to reflect this. DxO - any lab test - is at best a guideline.

A field test in normal less than perfect conditions is far, far more informative. Even better hire or borrow and test in the conditions and on the subject matter that is relative to you.
It's all very well to quote DxO et al as the standard but in truth these labs are merely a test of the equipment in carefully controlled conditions. At best a guideline - unless you work in a lab environment.

I'd like to step back for a second and ask about your decision to replace a 18-<something> lens with a 24-70mm lens. Have you decided you rarely use the 18-24mm focal length range?

I would also ask why you are spending $1000-1900 on a lens for an 8 year old camera? On of the memes from the film days was, "spend money on the glass, not the camera", and I believe it has falsely carried over to digital. With 35mm photography, the image quality depended more on the film than the camera, so it was the lens and the film which mattered most. The digital camera contains all the film you will ever be able to use inside it, so the lens and camera are at least comparably important.

To demonstrate what I am talking about, look at the DxOMark lens ratings for four combinations:
1. D200, Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR(I): 7
2. D200, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8: 12
3. Nikon D7100, Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR(I): 15
4. Nikon D7100, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8: 20

Spending $1100 on the Nikon D7100 would improve your image quality more than spending $1900 on the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. And it would improve with all your lenses.

If you find you use the 18-30mm range of your "kit lens" more than the 30-70mm range, a lens to consider is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM, $800. With the D7100 its DxOMark score is 28. Only a few of the best primes available will do better. You can get this lens and the Nikon D7100 for the same price as the Nikon 24-70mm lens!

Thanks to everyone for their responses.

The camera is what I have so that is what I will take. Taking the 50 makes sense as has been pointed out. In the wide angle department it is the 14-24 or the 24mm tilt-shift. As I would like to do some near-far landscape shots, it probably makes the most sense to use. (Also the 14-24 does not support my filters - which is a bit of a PITA, but there you have it.) Next is, what about moderate telephoto? That leaves the 105 or the 135 DC. Could go either way on that.

The tripod was a bit of a no-brainer for me. Two photographers - one tripod makes sense for a multi-day backcountry hike, and he just went and purchased a lovely light Gitzo with a RRS head. It was share or carry in my aluminum Manfrotto which is a little heavy and hence was never really something I was willing to consider.

The 300mm is heavy, and while wildlife will no doubt appear, it is not at the top of my subject list - me being more landscape oriented. With the D800, I can also crop a fair if the wildlife appears - if I don't want to print big. That leave me with the 105 or 135 as my choice for a moderate telephoto, (or if I want to go light I take just the 24 and the 50.)

Thanks again to everyone for contributing. You each bring your own experience and perspective, and I appreciate that.