I just got FoCal Pro to run through my lenses on a 7D and the most disappointing part was when I ran out of lenses and tests to run, it is some great software.
The manual states that the QoF numbers are not comparable from lens to lens, but if the lenses are run through back to back with the same lighting, target print, etc, would you you be able to compare your own lenses? Reason being, I'm looking for my best lens to do some panoramic stitching on an upcoming trip and want to get the best combination of image quality vs number of frames required. My 35L scored just under 1900 @f5, 24-105 @ 24mm scored just under 1600 @f5, and 10-22 set to 18mm scored about 1430 @ f5.6 and 6.3. (the 10-22 was the biggest beneficiary of FoCal, needing -7 AFMA at both ends of the zoom)
I was leaning toward to 35L before the testing because of best distortion control, but on a 7D I may end up doing two rows of pictures to get enough sky/foreground. If the numbers above mean anything, then two rows of landscape instead of a single row of portrait on the 35 might be the way to go, but capturing evening light over water the lighting will change quite rapidly near the equator and speed might be more important that ultimate image quality.
I haven't picked the pano software yet, but it looks like they are all pretty good at correcting distortion, but at image quality price I'm sure. I'm hoping to get at least one large print worthy image of the family sailing vacation. A location portrait with the family to be found in it somewhere, rather than the typical family shot over the fireplace.
Any advice welcome.