For FX, I have 50mm, 85mm, 70-200mm.

For DX, I have 11-16mm, 17-55mm, 18-200mm.

Do I need 24mm for FX? Initially, I was thinking of 14-24mm, and 24-70mm.

Not so keen on 24-70mm or 3rd party until when a VR replacement is available (if any), so was considering the 24mm prime.

I shoot a lot of scenery and some events, so I used the 13-16mm end of my 11-16mm and 17-35mm of my 17-55mm on DX quite a lot. As such, I thought of 14-24mm. Problem is if I do get either 14-24, 24 or 24-70, the 24mm prime is really overlapped so there is no justification for the 24mm prime unless I need f/1.4. If I do get the 24mm prime, then do I need the 14-24 or 24-70?

To top it off, I have other choices now: 24-120mm, 16-35mm, 28-300mm and the new 35mm. VR above 24mm is important to me, unless it's a prime.

?!?!?!? Or I just let my DX cover the low end and not get any lens.

I thought of moving out of DX completely but need it as a secondary backup for events. So it's the 14-70mm of the gap in FX that I need to fill, good thing it is not urgently, so I still have time to plan. I don't have much time to change lens during events. What would be your advice? I know everyone are unique and hence there will be varied opinions but I do respect them all and would like to hear them out. So do share. Thanks.