For the portrait lens, consider upgrading from your 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4. It's faster focusing, more accurate too. Also generally better made, nicer bokeh, better color & saturation. The 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 make a nice pair of portrait lenses on a crop camera like yours. On a cropper, the 50mm and 85mm are the short and long extremes of "traditional" portrait focal lengths. Yes, the 85mm is more of a tight head shot or outdoor portrait lens. Be warned, if you get the 85mm, in comparison you will probably start to find the 50/1.8 disappointing and end up getting the 50/1.4, too! That's why I mentioned it right up front.
When it comes to an ultrawide, you have a number of choices. I haven't used them all, but the Canon 10-22 is one of the best. It's unusually flare resistant for an UWA and has top image quality. It's also one of the most expensive of the UWA lenses.
The Tokina 12-24/4 actually is a close second in flare resistance (merely "very good", compared to the Canon) and image quality, and might be better built. Personally this is the lens I chose, after trying a bunch of different ones. It's considerably less expensive than the Canon, yet it reminds me very much of an L-series ultrawide I used with my film cameras.
The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is the only f2.8 in the bunch, very sharp and excellent image quality, but a very narrow range of focal lengths and a bit prone to flare. I don't really need f2.8 on an UWA lens, so wasn't willing to make the trade-offs and pay more for this lens over the Toki 12-24 (nearly identical build).
Sigma offers three UWA.... the 10-20 with the variable aperture is one of the cheaper choices. I haven't tried the current version, an earlier one didn't impress me for it's IQ. It was softer than the Tokina and had more issues with flare. But there's a newer version now that might be improved. Also there is a second 10-20 with f3.5 non-variable aperture. Don't know much about it, except it's one of the more expensive options. Sigma also offers an 8-16mm, which is the widest lens available (aside from a fisheye). Pretty amazing lens, but has a lot of inherent distortions... that's pretty hard to avoid in such a wide lens.
Finally, Tamron offers a 10-24mm. It covers the widest range of focal lengths in this class of lenses and is one of the least expensive. I haven't tried it, but a lot of people say it's a little soft at the 24mm end of the zoom range. (An earlier Tamron UWA model didn't impress me, though I've used a lot of their lenses over the years and some are tops.)
Sigma also has a 12-24mm, but it's actually a full frame lens. The widest available for full frame, in fact. It's pretty expensive and has some hefty distortion, but it can take shots no other lens can.
All the Rokinon lenses are manual focus and manual aperture only. Doable for landscapes, but wouldn't be my choice for a portrait lens where some of the time I might need to shoot a little faster that this type lens allows. Also, big aperture lenses require more critical focusing, which isn't as easy with today's AF cameras as it was with vintage cameras before AF. There's little or no savings anyway with the Rokinon 85mm compared to the Canon 85/1.8. The Rokinon 14mm I would consider for landscape photography, though (on full frame camera... with a crop camera I'd want a bit wider lens). Note: these same lenses sell rebranded under Samyang, Vivitar, Bower, ProOptic and some other brand names, too. Exact same lenses, sometimes cheaper or more expensive in the other brands.
You might consider used... make your dollars (or whatever) go farther. There's little to go wrong with a lens, as long as it's given reasonable care and not beat up. Just check inside and outside carefully, and take a few test shots with any used lens you might be considering.
