Should I upgrade my 20D Body..or new lens?

Hello everyone...
I currently own a 20D which I bought used on ebay about 2 years ago. It came with 2 lenses: canon 24-85mm and a canon 75-300..I never use the 75-300mm, and am going to sell it on ebay-should get around $100 if I am lucky. But I was thinking...
Should I just go ahead and upgrade my camera body?
It's either that or a new lens...Which would give me better results in the end?
I could sell my body and both lenses on ebay probably for around $500-$800 maybe. But then I guess I would have to buy a new body and new lens..I don't have a huge budget , but I would use a credit card if I had to, to get the results I am looking for.

I just don't know what to do..Sometimes I feel limited by my lens, especially when I see the great pics posted on this site. Would a better lens on my body do the trick, or should I get a better body and a decent lens to go with it (or keep my 24-85mm on a newer body)??

So many different options..any suggestions?
I shoot mostly family shots, with some attempted portrait shots on occasion. No weddings or anything (yet) money producing..

thanks

sell all of it and get a 40D with 24-105L.

Family shots or portraits can be done on a 20D just as good as a 30D or 40D. Resolution is good enough for some whopping big prints. Speed and AF is more than acceptable for portraits - even weddings.

You've no doubt read all the favourite 'general lens' threads, (Tamron 17-50, 24-70L, 24-105L, EFS 17-55 etc) - start looking for glass. Oh - look for a 430EX flash while you're at it. Does wonders for portraits and general use.

My vote is for glass. The 20D is still and will always be a capable body. If you don't need the new features, stick with it. Glass upgrade will lead you to more visible improvements. Don't go overboard and put yourself into debt. Get what you can afford. There are some great lens out there from 3rd parties like Tamron (17-50) that should fit your budget. IS is great and all, but is it necessary? No. It's a luxury.

The 20D suits me fine in the professional arena. It's a plenty capable camera for the amateur, enthusiast, or even a pro. You'd get a heck of a lot more out of a lens. I would also suggest the Tamron 17-50 if you're on a budget. If you can spare more and make no compromises, try the canon 17-55.

When choosing between bodies and glass, always go bodies. Lenses are something that will last many years if you look after them, and will improve your photos many more times over than a 40D ever could.

watchtherocks wrote in post #5291052
When choosing between bodies and glass, always go bodies. Lenses are something that will last many years if you look after them, and will improve your photos many more times over than a 40D ever could.

Don't you mean

? ? ?

You are right however, glass will last for many years...not to mention keep their value.

Your 20D plus lenses if sold on Ebay might fetch around $500 : NZ dollars. You're better off saving up and trading in your two lenses for

"one nithe lenth" Good luck.

ROFL, yes.

Glass first, body second.

Is there anything in particular about the 20D that you dont like? Its an extremely capable camera and maybe could benefit from some better built lenses.

From what i read about the 20D it´s a great camera and those that still have it love it. Get glass instead.

Great camera, still. The sensor is still as good as it gets without going full frame on a 5D. It'll still be a good camera for a good few years.

Go for a better lens, and enjoy.

So updgraded glass will probably be the best option...Thats realy what I was leaning to, since I really have no major complaints about the 20D-then adain, I really can't compare it to any other dslr's cause its the first and only one I ever owned.
The same goes with my lenses..They are the only 2 I ever owned, so nothing really to compare them with. From my experience/experimenta​tion, all Iknow is that the 24-85 is better than my 75-300...but how good that 24-75 is, really I don't know. From the reviews, and posts on this site, it looks like not so good of a lens..I guess I am looking for something a little sharper, whether from canon or a third party. That canon 17-55mm looks nice, but ouch, $1000, I would be scared carrying that sucker around. The tamron 17-50 looks nice as well..is the IS really the only defference? If so, I could live without it for less than half the price of the canon...
Thanks to all for the advice, and I will go back th the lens forum and get back to my research..what a task, like I said before..so many choices..