also what about a macro? 60mm or 100mm? aside from price is there a huge difference in those two canon lenses?
In terms of IQ, most reviews have said the 100 Macro L is pretty much the same as the regular 100 but without the Hybrid IS. The difference between the 60 and 100 though is the distance you have to frame your subject and your camera. Generally the rule of thumb is higher MM on a macro is BETTER for the fact that you have more room to shoot and don't risk getting too close to your subject.
That said I think you should really decide first on what you like shooting the most. I find it's a waste of money to buy an assortment of sub quality lenses when you can save that cash for much better lenses.
On your crop, I'd say the 17-40 L is a good bet - I was using that on my XT before I went to a 5D. Now I pretty much exclusively use the 24-105 L and the 85 1.2 II L for everything (mostly because the 24-105 covers a normal distance that the 17-40 would generally cover on a crop). While the 17-55 is a decent stock lens, the L glass even in the 17-40 is significantly better than the 17-55 for color / contrast and CA management. The level of fringing off the 17-40 is significantly more well controlled, especially at a stop down from wide open, compared to the stock lenses.
Ultimately though it really depends what you like to shoot. I do a mixture myself between portrait and landscape, but I always prefer to have the best quality lenses before I go into each foray, rather than shooting one with a marginal lens!