Is it easier to compensate for glass or lighting?

I have managed to save a bit of money up. I am wanting to eventually do this for money (not full time, but a few extra bucks is great). I'm gearing toward portrait work and prefer location style stuff. And by "prefer" I mean I don't have the space to shoot in...haha.

Currently I have:

50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
18-55 paperwe...err...kit lens

Vivitar 285
Canon 430ex
Armatar l200
2xGenesis 400's

I have no portable power for my Genesis lights, but I have skyports for the battery powered guys.

Should I get an Explorer XT SE for my Genesis lights to have more power on location, or get either the 24-105L f/4 or maybe a 70-200mm f/4 non IS.

I can get the Explorer Monday....one of the lenses, probably next month....so they are all within reach.

Which is going to expand my options more? As an impatient person I'm wanting the Explorer because I can get it sooner and I kind of feel like more powerful lights on location would open up some options that aren't available with my current lighting. On the other hand my focal lengths are limiting, particularly the wider side since I only have the kit lens.

Basically, it boils down to "small flashes/good lens" or "so so lenses, more lighting options".

So what would some of you fine folks do?

IMO, the portable lighting will probably provide a bigger impact on your final images....so I vote for the Explorer

Presumably, you're talking about shooting portraits.

If so, you already have two fine portrait lenses, and the kit lens is okay when stopped down a bit. To be honest, more lenses might give you the option of different kinds of pictures, but it won't make them better.

Lighting will definitely makes the biggest difference in improving the quality of your work, and it seems to be the major bottleneck you're suffering right now.