Please help with lens choice

Hi guys - first post here but have been readig through the forum for a few weeks now and find it very informative - although sometimes it is information overload. Anyway I need some help deciding on a first up DSLR setup.
The easy part was deciding on the 30D so thats the camera that I hope will do me for a few years. I dont think I have any need to go FF unless canon forces me to - my next camera would probably be the 50D or even 60D.
I am after an initial lens to accompany my (down the track - no more than 6 months) 70-400 IS 2.8 or 4 (depending whether or not i can accept the weight).
I am thinking either the ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS, or the ef 17-40mm f4L, or the 24-105mm f4L IS.
I am interested in landscape and panoramics, streetscape, arty stuff, candid moments at parties/BBQ - both indoors and outdoors. I want the lens to cover most of this as possible and also be a good walk around lens as well. Also I want this lens to be a keeper for at least a few years and want it to be a good partner to the future 70-200 and even maybe a really wide angle lens one day.
Please let me know what you guys think.
TIA

The 17-55 IS gets my vote. You will get some wide angle, great for both landscapes and for portraiture - IS is handy for walk around. For a two lens setup, you are better off with a wider, more versatile lens.

second that; 17-55 IS

If you stick to the 1.6 crop line of 30D, go for the 17-55. Can't go wrong there.

Late again! 17-55 IS. But test a few first. Manufacturing errors are a bit high on this lens. It SHOULD be sharp across the board.
G'luck.

Another vote for the 17-55 IS. Absolutely love that lens!

also consider the tamron 17-50 f2.8 as well.

OK yet another change of thought. The dust problems cropping up on the 17-55 is made me rethink my lens line up. Instead of the 17-55 I am think the 17-40 with a 50 f1.4 which is about the same price as the 17-55. Dont forget I will down the track get a 70-200 IS of some f number. Everyone raves about the 17-40 and even the 50 for that matter. I basically get the same focal length coverage as the 17-55 with the extra benefit of a 50 that will be handy for indorr low light events. On the downside I lose IS but from what I understand IS is way more important at longer focal lengths.
Any commetns welcomed as I wish to purchase very soon.

Stay the course: 1755IS.

I would still vote for the 17-55 IS than the 17-40+50. IS is highly under-rated according to me.

Still 17-55. It will allow you to get shot's you can't get with the 17-40 in low light. The 50/1.4 is nice, but has a fairly small FoV on a crop camera...

I'd wait out the dust problem on the 17-55, if it were me. Not all users seem to have the problem, but..."once warned!..." I'd feel like a fool if I bought one and it had dust issues after so many others have complained about it. Its waaaayyy too much money for a lens with "issues", IMHO.

Just a thought. I'm not trying to be argumentative. The "dust problem" with the 17-55 reminds me of the "portrait issue" with the 70-300. There was much debate in many threads (now a sticky) about the wisdom of buying vs waiting after this situation came to light. Those of us who bought, even though the issue was known, have sent our lenses in for repair, received them back and are enjoying them. Many of those who waited until the issue was resolved are now lamenting the lack of availability (until recently) of the lens. If you want the lens, get it now. If there truly is an issue with the lens that Canon recognizes due to an inordinate number of warranty returns, I'm confident that Canon will devise a repair and do the right thing by all owners. In the meantime, you'll have the use of a very well-regarded and capable lens.