5D Mark III and 2 lenses. You choose 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS

Am traveling for a quick trip to Michigan State in Lansing MI.
As hard as it is for me who does not travel light, I am going to take 2 of the three above.
Love to hear your thoughts.

I would suggest taking just the 24-105mm, but if you insist on taking two, I would recommend the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm.

My question is "What do you intend photographing there?" If you are going to be getting shots of birds etc, for example, I would take the 70 to 200 as well as the 24-105.
W

Personally the 17-40 and the 70-200, if you take the 24-105 you miss the wide end which could be valuable and have a 30mm overlap if you take the 24/105+70/200

Bring the 17-40 + 24-105. Drop in the 50 f1.4 for some artsy or low light shooting - rather than being limited to f4 for everything.


.... unless its something you need some reach on like field sports or birding. Then the 70-200 seems like a natural.

If you plan on taking photos of the campus, you may want the wider angle that the 17-40L will provide. Add the 70-200 for a little reach, as you should be able to compensate for the missing focal length range between 40-70mm.

If you wanted to take a single lens, though, I would take the 24-105L.

I have exactly the same dilemma going to the UK in six weeks. 5D3, and two of the three lenses ... 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200.

Based on the fact that the 70-200 is the best of the three it has to be one of the two I bring.

I think I will miss the focal lengths from 17-24 more than the ones between 40-70, so the 17-40 is my other choice.

I am going to try very, very hard NOT to have to take only two, though!

I am also going to try to sneak in a 50 f/1.4 for low light (and to partially seal the 40-70 "gap").

Maxdave

17-40mm and 70-200mm.

But I might just take one in this case as I don't consider the 70-200mm very long, so I might just go 24-105mm

17-40L and 70-200L for sure. Maximum flexibility and you will probably never miss the little gap. But if you have a little more money to spend I would upgrade the 17-40 to a 16-35/4.0L IS.
16-35/4.0L IS + 70-200/4.0L IS

Bonbridge.
Last year when I purchased the 17-40, the new 16-35 f/4 L IS was a few months away from hitting the market. No doubt I would have bought the f/4 L IS if available. I may be taking your advice relatively soon in adding it to the collection.

I agree with everyone else who said 17-40 and 70-200, but it's worth noting that the 24-105 would be your best low-light lens of the three.

IMHO there are 2 types of photography:

• Convenience Photography. You'd rather just have 1 kit that lets you take a nice shot of what's happening without too much inconvenience.
  
• Perfection Photography. You're after that great shot. Swapping a lens, attaching a tripod, no problem.