Here's what I find... Unless you need big apertures, a super zoom (i.e. 18-200) is the way to go. Something like the Canon 18-200 has IS, and one full stop slower at full tele than the 70-200 f/4. The trade off is lower IQ, but HUGE gains in that you can just leave the lens on all the time. And you're out taking pics of stuff like castles and what not in daylight, you'll be hard pressed to see much difference between the f/4 lens and the 18-200 stopped down.
On my last trip to Hawaii, I opted to bring my multi lens setup (11-16, 17-50, 85) instead of my usual trip gear (11-16, 18-200). What I found was that a.) like Accent, I hardly used the 85, but b.) I found that when I did want tele, the 85 was insufficient. Cause when I wanted tele, I *really* want tele. The extra reach that the 85 offered over the 17-50 was just not quite enough. I ended up with lots of cropped pics.
So for me, and my recommendation for you, again, as others pointed out, depending on your needs, I'd get an ultrawide + a super zoom for trips. But then again, depends on your budget too. My 18-200 sits idle for 350 days of the year. That's a lot of $$$ tied up in a lens that only does travel duty. And no matter how light the 70-200 f/4 + 17-85 combo is, it'll still be heavy compared to a plastic super zoom. And that gets really tiring to carry around. And especially so for me (kids) cause with kids, it's just a PITA to be switching lenses back and forth.
My 2 cents...
You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!