You're right - I meant Prime Tele. And I suppose I'm getting at a need for faster action at low light. Does that make sense?
I appreciate all the comments - and am leaning towards a new 70D at this point. I do understand that bodies are a personal choice, but knowing the wife as I do, she'll never buy one unless I force the issue. I'd rather do a return for something else than a gift cert. The real question then, at this point, is will a 70D be enough, or should I do the 70D and a lens.
Faster action at low light does make sense.
The most versatile crop body/lens combo for action at low light is the 7D2 with the 70-200 f2.8L II. This will cost around $4,000. The second best option is the 70D with the same lens for around $3,000. Image quality between the two bodies is similar. The benefits of the 7D2 will be most noticeable if shooting a lot of sports or wildlife. If sports isn't a main subject matter, then the 70D would still be a great choice. With either combo, the 70-200 is the star. It will outlast either body and shine even brighter if there is a full-frame in your wife's future.
I assume that the 70-300 that your wife has is the non-L version. I have the same lens. It collects dust now. Cropping the 70-200 at 200 is sharper than the 70-300 at 300.
If the 70-200 is too much lens right now (it sells for around $2,000), consider planning for it to be a future purchase. An 85 1.8 or a 100 2.0 may be a good interim lens. But, I would advise against the 135 2.0. True, it's a great lens, but it's not as versatile as the 70-200.
I upgraded my XT to a 60D then went through a few months of debating over a second choice to the 70-200. I came real close to getting a 100 f2.0 when it was over $500. Then I took a cheap 18-135 to a local event and tried to use it only at 100 mm. It didn't take long to realize the benefit of the 70-200. So, I waited a couple more months and took the 70-200 Mk II plunge -- absolutely my best purchase.