In you list you only have primes, but I would still consider the 14-24.
I do a lot of stitching, and night photography, milky way and standard star work. Milky way shots, need high iso, short exposure times, 15 sec or less (more and you get star trails in the shot, which IMO detract from the image) and a 1.4 lens if possible. You also need a pretty wide lens, to get a good composition unless you have a huge vista, like out in the western US. I work in the midwest, where the vista's are tigher and thus you tend to need 14mm or at least 18mm.
What you have to watch for with any 1.4 to 1.8 lens, is coma aberation, known also as "butterfly wings". The effect tends to show up towards the edge of a image, and will ruin a milky way shot. Some 1.4 lenses show this worse than others. For example the Nikon 24mm 1.4 is one of the worse offenders. Great lens, but worthless for night work. Whereas the Rokinon 24mm 1.4 does a very good job, from F1.8 out for about 1/4 of the price.
For night work I would look at:
Rokinon 14mm F2.8 and 24mm F1.4
Nikon 20mm 1.8 (I have this lens, but have not been able to test it at night yet for coma)
Nikon 14-24, F2.8. This is a great lens as others have mentioned, and at F2.8 there is NO COMA. If conditions allow it can make wonderful night shots. I use
my 14-24 on all star trail photography and some milky way shots. I find the milky way is shot best with a wanning moon, attempt to catch the wanning moon
rise to help illuminate your sugject. This gives a much more realistic look to a overall scene.
Zeiss 18mm F3.5, This lens has a terrible hyperfocal distance, when compared to the 14-24, and it vignettes terribly wide open, however it takes a very sharp
image of the night sky and LR lens corrections can really help on the vignetting.
For landscape, you have a lot more options.
I stitch and stitch often, I stitch with wides and most of the time don't worry about "nodal points" or tripods. You can get some very good stitched images just hand holding a modern DSLR, as long as it's a landscape shot, where warping (done during the stitching in software) won't effect your final output. This is not true with fixed known dimensional subjects, like bridges, or buildings. Here the use of a nodal point, and being level is much more important.
The 14-24 2 24mm is an excellent stitching lens. You can take a row of vertical shots, and easily create a panorama, or just a high res 3:2 shot. You can go as far as 20mm in the vertical, as much wider and distortion will make the final composition much harder. For multi-row, the list that Bernard has given is a great starting place. I most times just to do a multi row anymore, as the 36MP output from the D810 gets a huge amount of material.
The 14-24 is a big heavy lens, the outer element loves to flare and the flare will often catch you off guard and it's a very destructive flare. In night work with the moon (I only shoot star trails as stacked series of images with moonlight, you can read more about it here:
http://photosofarkansas.com/2014/09/23/092314-using-stacking-for-better-night-photography-results/If you want to filter the 14-24, which I often do in working with water and landscape shots, you will need to add something like the Lee SW-150 setup, and find a large glass CL-PL, like the one from CaVision in Canada. It works, but can be a pain at times.
I am hoping to see that the new 20mm 1.8 will work also, as it's such a smaller lens, and light weight. However as it's a 1.8 lens, it's hyperfocal distance is strange and hard to figure out. I am still working on it and so far I have not found a very good solution.
The Zeiss, 18mm 3.5 or 21mm F 2.8, are both great lenses, but they have not so good hyperfocal distances. The 14-24 at either 18mm or 21mm will total out perform either of the Zeiss lenses on hyperfocal distance, in the F6.3 to F8 range. You want to be careful not to go much past F11 on the D810 as you will start to see the effects of diffraction and softness. Advantage to the Zeiss lenses, as they take filters easily, and the 18mm is very light. They have excellent manual focusing, unlike the Nikon zooms.
For telephoto, I have the 70-200, F2.8, but never hardly use it. I carry the Tamron 70-300 in the field, and love the results. I know it's not expensive, but it produces excellent images. I also just purchased the Tamron 150-600, and so far I am very impressed with that lens also. The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is a great -, but it's limited in range and very heavy to carry all day. I can take the same shot with a D800 or D810 with my Tamron 70-300 by just pushing up the iso to 250 to 320 and still get an excellent shot.
Congratulations on the D810, as it's a most impressive camera. If it only had a LCD that tilted like the 750, I would be totally satisfied. I had really hoped Nikon would make the change, but looks like it will be a few more years.
Paul