You'll probably find that the 28mm/1.8 isn't nearly as useful on a full-frame body as it is on APS-C (where it can play the part of a normal lens, splitting the difference between a 40 and a 50). It's not that you won't find the focal length useful, but that you'll probably find less need for speed at that focal length (which is now a legitimate, if moderate, wide-angle for you). Since you have the focal length covered by the 17-40, you might want to reconsider keeping the 28 since the perspective forcing isn't necessarily a good fit with a shallow depth of field. (It gives you two different "separations" in the same picture—a foreshortening/size separation and in/out-of-focus. I find that is sort of gilding the lily.)

The only other place for a tweak is with the 40 and 50, but they'll serve different purposes. I'm not a big pancake guy unless the body is also especially compact (and the great huge grip on a DSLR means that even the smallest of the mirror breed is a lot too big for me to think, "wow, that's svelte!"), but I guess I can concede that other people would find it attractive for a walkin'-around lens. And if you do video at all, it's a no-brainer. But it can't do what a 50/1.4 can do, so if you're the sort of person who can use the word bokehlicious with a straight face, you'll need that as well.

(Now, if it were actually me, I'd get rid of the 28, and I would skip both the 17-40 and the 40 STM. A 50 is a special-effect wide-angle lens for me on full-frame, and the 90 macro would be my walkin'-around lens. But that's a matter of style, vision and preference, and that's just the way I roll.)