Is the 16-85mm or 18-105mm better?

1) I want either one of them due to it's a versatile lens as an amateur I want a versatile lens. (Buying the Nikon D7000 110% by the way.)
2) Which one would not 'degrade' my Nikon D7000?
3) Why choose that one? List a few reasons?
4) Which one's optically better?

Please answer and do not direct me to a site.

Go with the 18-105mm you get a better zoom distance and its a great everyday Lens too. Make sure that it is a VR DX not only DX the VR is a stabilizer that helps to stabilize the image which makes a Better quality picture and also the nikon D7000 is a Awesome camera ha video 1080p Have fun with it!

Neither would really "degrade" your camera, as both are pretty good lenses in terms of optical quality. I think it more or less comes down to versatility and build quality, which the 16-85mm lens wins in.

Even though the 16-85mm has a shorter max focal length, it makes up for that with a wider wide-angle, which in my opinion makes a much larger difference than having a bit extra for telephoto. Furthermore, it'd built better as well, as it features a focus scale (not really relevant to most people nowadays) and uses a metal mount instead of a plastic one. It also features the better VR system, which means you'll get shots that are less blurry when hand-holding the camera.

If you want to be super picky, the 16-85mm lens also wins by a slight margin in terms of image quality, but honestly, none of these two lenses will ever make the most out of the D7000. Given a choice, I would go for neither lens because they are both not long enough for general photography if you want to take pictures of birds, animals, and things far away. Instead, I'd look at the Nikkor 18-200mm lens, and get a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 for low-light situations or when image quality is more important than convenience.

The 16-85 costs about twice as much as the 18-105, so i think you're comparing apples and oranges. If you have the $600 or so to spend that the 16-85 costs, then you should compare it not to the 18-105, but to the 18-200VR or to the 18-105 with an additional 50mm/1.4 lens that you can get for the same total price.

That being said, the 16-85mm will have better build quality and slightly better image quality than the 18-105. One likely couldn't tell them apart in a test though, so i think the small improvement is not worth the extra price. Also, if you want optimal image quality, you'll need primes anyway.

So… If i had no lenses at all and $600 to spend for them, i'd probably get the 18-105+50mm/1.4 combo. On the other hand, if you expect to make good use of a telephoto lens and don't care so much about low light or portraiture, consider the 18-200VR.