I second Ben: for that kind of data, the defaults will automatically work well for you; so no
-lmax option needed for either
dhollander as well as
dwi2response will give you lmax=0 response functions for GM and CSF, and lmax=10 response functions for the non-b=0 parts of the WM response. Feeding these responses to
dwi2fod, combined with your data at hand, will (as Ben said as well) result in lmax=8 WM FODs and lmax=0 GM and CSF results. In practice, you don’t even have to check this (but you can, of course): the FODs will just behave as expected for any further uses (be it tractography, quantitative analysis, etc…).
As to choice of response function selection algorithm, I’m very confident
dhollander will perform best if you’re looking at developed human data. So unless there’s anything particularly exotic about your data,
dhollander should provide the most accurate result (furthermore with the least hassle). If things do start to get exotic on whatever front, it’s often very likely
msmt_5tt will start to fail earlier, at least if running from
5ttgen fsl results out of the box on such data. Let us know if you run into any issues. If you want to be sure, simply copy-paste the contents of the response function files you get along with a screenshot or two of your WM FOD outcome; I’ll happily let you know if anything looks suspicious!