If you want to go from portraits to landscapes without changing lenses, then I'd recommend against the primes. Primes are great for quality and being fast, but they are not as versatile, at least in terms of field of view. They offer great value for the quality, but require swapping lenses if your field of view is too far removed from what the focal length of the lens is. Portraits tend to be tight and longer while landscapes tend to be rather wide angle. There are situations where a standard or even telephoto can be useful, but when you want to capture a broad scene, wide angle is the way to go unless you want to do a panoramic shot (which would use more of a standard or even light telephoto lens with multiple images. You do this to avoid distortions you get near the edge of a wide angle lens.)

That said, the lenses you list are two fairly standard length primes and a telephoto to super-telephoto. Neither prime is particularly wide, though the 35 could probably work for landscapes. On a crop body, the 55-200 is more telephoto to super-telephoto range, so not really for landscapes, though the shorter end could be used for portraits, particularly close portraits.

The 50 prime would be great for portraits and is probably the most balanced of the three lenses you listed, but you really want a standard zoom. Something in the 24-105 or 17-70 kind of range, but staying at a 24 or lower start. I don't know the Nikkor line well enough to suggest a particular lens.

If you are willing to swap lenses, using the 50 for portraits and the 35 for landscapes would work well enough (though you could go wider, even 17 would be good). They are not stabilized as they lack the VR marking, but they shouldn't really need stabilization as they are both reasonably short lenses. Ideally you should be using a tripod for portraits and landscapes anyway.