Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.
The Canon 7D II is a fine camera, in a number of important ways, but it just ranked too low in practically every category (sensor-wise) for me to get excited enough to spend money on.
But realistically, I think that sites like DxO give some help in choosing lenses as you can check out those lenses at different parts of the image and at different apertures. For me a single figure of merit is pretty worthless. Just to give a small example:
That is a good point. The aperture you're most comfortable with (or where the lens excels at) is a good figure to know.
However, the truth is, if a particular lens is up to (or close to) the 1000 range in whatever it's being rated at, you can be assured it is pretty much above average to excellent in all areas in that category.
But what about Bokeh?
Bokeh is integral to both macro and bird photography, and the DxO mark doesn't even rate this, whereas LenScore gives it the consideration it deserves.
I am mostly shooting landscapes and very seldom use large apertures. Normally I would use f/8 and adjust when needed. Now, f/8 is probably not the best aperture on many lenses, but I feel that diffraction is not really taking it's toll before f/11 and f/8 gives some leeway for non-optimal focus. So, I care very little about performance at f/2.8, or f/1.4. But, there is an exception.
I really want a short telephoto lens that can be used for those ultra thin DoF shots. I may not need f/1.4, f/2.8 is actually quite OK, but I want a lens that is usable at that full aperture without magenta/green fringing.
LenScore includes this into their figure of merit, but they also include it as a parameter. The Zeiss Otuses are on top of that list. Of the affordable lenses, the following lenses are on top:
Sony Planar T* 85 f/1.4 ZA -> 1096
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM -> 1074
Canon EF 85/1.2 LII -> 1069
But on the overall rating I would choose:
Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/85 Batis -> 1003
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85/14G -> 1000
Sigma 85 f/1.4 EX -> 986
Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G -> 953
Canon 85/12LII -> 940
Best regards
Erik
IMO, there is a point to where you're splitting hairs and arguing minutia.
For example, if one lens scores 986 in regards to (say) resolution, while another scores 1069, the real-world difference is going to be negligible.
However, if (say) one lens scores 1250 in resolution, while another scores 785, then you are talking about a vast difference in quality.
LenScore says its "defacto standard" for excellence is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with
a score of 1000 in each category.
Therefore, it is probably a safe assumption that, if your lens is at (or close) to 1000 in a particular category, you have "a good thing in your hands."
If what you have is 1100-1200+, then you probably have something exemplary and beyond (as you go up);
By contrast, if what you have is rated at only 800-700-, then you probably have something average to poor (as you go down), etc.
With that said, making gear-changing decisions between 986 and 1000 would be, at best, unproductive.
But making decisions between 750 and 1050 might be something to consider.
Jack