Heading to the south island of New Zealand next week for 8 days, primarily a social visit, but hope to get out in the country weather permitting some good scenes in a spectacular land.

Not bringing my full kit. Will have the MkIV, and either the 17-40 and 24-70, or the 17-40 and 70-200, or 24-70 and 70-200.

I'm leaning to the first combo, but there's a lot of overlap. I'm thinking the 24-70 is not going to provide the wide option given the crop body, but I'm not sure I'm really going to need or use the reach on the 70-200 (and it's a bit bulkier obviously).

What say you? Just looking for thoughts that would nudge me one way or the other.

Aww man! This is why I have the 70-200/4 IS! I'd still go with option B.

It depends on your interests - for landscapes, you'll need the 17-40 or the 24-70. If you're interested in wildlife (seals, whales etc), you'll need the 70-200. Not sure what area of the Sth Island you're heading to, but sperm whales to be found off Kaikoura (will need the 70-200) and the smallest dolphin - Hector's Dolpin, off Akaroa, both on the east side of the island, driving distance from Christchurch.

...what else is in your kit? For sure the 70-200, but I would take something else in the UWA and WA range

I saw your profile:
I would bring both bodies; one with the 300mm and the other with the 24-70 - then rent or borrow a UWA (14-to 18mm range)

I won't advise on which lenses to take because you're sure to find a use for any of them.

However, don't be afraid of FL overlap because it just reduces the number of lens changes in the field. e.g. if you need about 30mm then both the 17-40 and 24-70 could do the job.

A FL gap is ok too - it will always be quite clear when you need to use the wider lens or the longer lens to cover the subject.

You've got enough pixels to afford some cropping, but not enough to turn 70mm into what should have been 200mm.

You might want to take or buy or borrow a monopod, especially if your lenses do not have IS.

Be prepared to use higher ISO and suffer some noise rather than sacrifice too much shutter speed and get blurry shots, or too much aperture. For that reason I would not take the 1Ds2 instead of the 1D4.

You could easily get a run of crappy weather and cannot count on lots of great light. On the plus side there would be less heat haze and you could get some nice shots with the 70-200 of the distant scenery.