I'm brand new the forum and have been reading posts similar to this one over the last several days so as to avoid repeating questions, but, having done so, I'd still like some thoughts on my given situation.
From what I've read, here's the general information generally requested by those who respond. (Question(s) to follow):
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS SLR Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Various Point-and-Shoot Canons
-Primarily outdoor photography -- wildlife and landscapes
-Would like to use large prints (e.g., 20x24 and up) as wall decorations in my home
-Sports photography (but not for several years as young relatives age)
-Trip to Alaska in Summer 2012 (primary reason for question)
-Often hike 5-12 miles with camera and two lenses (i.e., portability is relatively important)
I'm looking to upgrade something for my trip next summer. I've been looking at bodies within my price range, primarily the 60d and 7d. However, I often read recommendations to upgrade lenses before bodies. Given what I like to do and the gear I have, am I better off investing in a new lens and having it on the older XT body, or buying a new body and using the lenses I have? (For example, is an L-series lens worth it on the body I've got?) Or neither, and you have a better idea? I will eventually upgrade both in the years ahead and would prefer to not just buy something in the $400-600 range to temporarily "get me by," as I've already got that in the Rebel XT and 70-300 lens. I would prefer investing in stuff I can use for many years.
If you think I should opt for lenses, what would you recommend I upgrade? Should I go for something like a 70-200 f/4 L and replace the 70-300 or go for a wider-zoom L-series (e.g., 24-105 f/4 L or 24-70 f/2.8 L) to use for landscapes and just keep using the 70-300 I've got for wildlife?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Sorry for the length of the post, I hoped to be thorough to give you the best sense of where I stand.