Seems kind of moving backwards to me but than again it was questions like this, that has led me to having 20 lenses. There is no real good answer. One thing I believe in is a few grams savings in weight, is rarely worth going backwards in quality or convenience. Now that changes a bit with the 70-200 & 300 2.8s but as sharp as Nikon's zooms are, you don't gain much with primes.
You could go for a whole different set up with a 24-120 or the 28-300 and add primes as well. If you are not really needing the 2.8 at the 24-70.
If you can find a used one, Tokina has a great 17mm f3.5. It is a fantastic lens and would give you that wide angle. Tamron has a great 14mm as well used.
The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens (some had some not so hot variations in the first few runs but is now good) or add the 1.8 (even the older one) as well can be had for $100. It doesn't leave much reason not to get one.
Maybe not much help, but this will be one that each photographer has to pick for themselves. Only you know where a gap is for what you shoot.