If you don't want to have to switch lenses alot, I'd probably stay away from the 11-16. The second and third options both seem pretty good for ranges though. It really comes down to how much telephoto you expect to need. The 135 will give you nice reach, but you won't have the f/2.8 across your standard zoom, which is a very nice thing to have for portraits.
Personally, I didn't miss the lack of f/2.8 too much until I got it, but now that I have it, I couldn't live without it. That said, you still have the 50mm 1.8 prime in there that will give you a nice lens for portrait works with a strong bokeh, so either could work.
The second set, you get more range and have to change lenses a bit more. The third you don't have to change lenses as much and get a faster standard zoom but lose out on range. It's also worth pointing out that the faster zoom is more "upgrade proof" since you can't get a zoom much faster than f/2.8, but you may find yourself wanting to upgrade to an f/2.8 standard zoom in the future if you get a slower one. This is what happened to me with my telephoto lens.
If it was me personally, I'd probably lean towards the third option and pick up the telephoto a bit later when I had the funds for it. I might even do the third option without the prime and go for the telephoto as soon as I could afford it and then get the prime later, but that's mostly because I do events and so I need to be able to change focal length quickly. If you plan to have time for your shots, then a prime is very nice to have.
Update: Actually, I came back and re-read it and would possibly lean towards the second set instead. For landscape on a crop, you'll want something wider than 28. I was thinking of 24 from my 24-70 (which is a Canon lens). I missed that it was a 28 which is a bit too narrow for some landscape stuff. It really just puts me back in the undecided between the second and third option though.