Assuming your budget is around 3k (16-35L II + 50L that you listed under option 1), I would suggest the 24-70L II and the ef-s 10-22 (used/refurbished, which you would sell when you move to FF). Assuming you don't need larger apertures for speed or thinner DOF, the 24-70 II (based on TDP charts) performs about as well as the 24L II, 35L at f/2.8 and smaller and is much better than any canon 50mm. The 16-35L II softens a bit at the longer end of the zoom range, so I tend to use it at the wider end.
When you move to FF, you could sell the 10-22 and use the proceeds to offset the cost of the FF camera or use it to fund a FF UWA lens. 24mm is wide enough most of the time and how much you'd need the 16-24mm range is based on your individual style.
I switched to FF earlier this year, and I have your option 1 setup. When I travel, I bring the 16-35, 50 and the 70-200. It works well -- it covers landscapes, low light and has some reach. If I didn't use the 50 at apertures larger than f/2.8 so often, I would definitely consider a 24-70 in place of the 50. Even now, I'm considering getting the 24-70 II in the future if it proves to be robust and as sharp as the initial reviews indicate and when prices soften a bit.