Which option?

Which option should I get when you consider my signature.

1. 17-40 and 135l

Or

2. 24-70l

I'd go with option 1 because I like UWA and the 24-70 is a bit underwhelming.

Are you saying that it is underwhelming because of the field of view the 24-70 has on your crop sensor?

No, because of its price/performance ratio in terms of IQ. Its not very sharp wide open, the nikkor offering is much better, and you can get a tamron or sigma equivalent that produces pretty much the same IQ for much less dosh.
I know someone is going to jump in here and say "but contrast, saturation, colours, L-ness!!" but these things can easily be done in PP.

Of course you get better AF and build than the competition with the canon, but IMO, as a package, taking the price and other offerings into account, it is underwhelming.

What if throw in the 35l as an option?

Well personally I don't like the 30-35mm FOV on FF, so I wouldn't choose it either

I would say 17-40 and 135. Even though the 17-40 is F4, its wide, so you don't need very fast shutters to counter camera shake. Great lens. 135mm F2 needs no mention

If I go the 17-40 and 135L route, should I consider selling my 70-200F4L? I don't know if I would use it as much if I had the 135l. Maybe get an extender for the 135 or is that just making a mess of things.