I know none of you know me but i'm trying to figure out which way to go, a body or lens. The wife has givin me permission to make a purchase and I'm torn which way to go.

Just a bit about me. I started shooting because of landscape and nature and my first camera was a T2i and a Sigma 18-125 lens. I then added a 35 f/2 a Tamron 70-300, and a 50 f/1.8. Since I started shooting, i've been doing more people in a jounlistic like style with only the 50 f/1.8 on a crop sensor body and a lot of portraits (unpayed) Mostly right now I have been following with pretty much just the samething, prime, with shooting my son and I have 3 requests for paid portrait/family shoots which the 50 will be my go to.

My delima is I want a better walk around lens and I want to replace my T2i with something a little more professional. I've been hanging out on Adorama used and really fallen for an old 1D mkIII (not the 1 Ds, i wish) for $999.00 and a Canon 28-70 f/2.8 L for $799. I wish I could do both but just can't. I know bodys come and go but glass lasts and I should think of the Lens. But the geek in me wants a 1D body even if it is a 1.3 crop and will make landscapes difficult but I'll still have the T2i. I've been using just the 50 for the last 9 months on a 40D so i'm very comfortable with living with that range and the 10.1 MP which should be better on the 1.3 crop over the 1.6 crop. Plus, if I get more photo gigs i want something that looks professional and has a more advanced even though older AF system than the T2i. I know the 40D focuses better at 1.8 than my T2i has been, another reason for the 1D is micro adjustments. I would go with the 17-55 f/2.8 but I know I will go to full frame eventually. I've read that the older 28-70 may have been better than the gen 1 24-70 but no where near the 24-70 II.

Now that I've totally bord you, what do you think? (Sorry my ipad spell check is not checking in this text box)