35mm Lens, FX or DX version?

[CatCloud]

So i have the Nikon D5300 and still using that Stock 18-55mm VR II lens.

So i was reading around and made up my mind that a 35mm would be a good start on a prime but here is where i hurt my head.

There are two version on the 35mm 1.8G from Nikon one is DX and one is FX and i was wondering if there is a noticeable difference on the end results?
My camera is DX but it can use some FX/Full Frame lenses, and going with a FX might be slightly more future proof (?) incase i get a full frame Camera down the line.
Yeah there is around 400$ difference but i dont mind that, if the FX is flat out better then i´d go with that.
 

Aside from this guy i cant seem to find much info with this two side by side.
Oh and this place http://nikonrumors.com/2014/06/13/nikon-35mm-f1-8g-ed-fx-lens-tested-by-dxomark.aspx/

Anyone here had any experience with both of them?

[Axel Sypkens Smit]

I would go for the DX the FX doesn't seem to preform better from what I have seen. It's also bulkier. I also don't feel like upgrading to full frame is that big of an improvement anymore (although I have already invested in FX lenses you never know). If you would want to upgrade I think the D7100 is a better choice than a D610 or D600 right now. 

 

At F1.8 the Fx also doesn't seem to preform that well: 

In this video he also says "If you only shoot DX, you are better of buying the DX version''

[rmac52]

For 3x the price the fx is not worth it.  The dx version is around $200 and the fx is $600

[SeanAngelo]

i would get the dx version.

 

getting mine soon, hopefully before christmas.

[TheProfosist]

You already know which lens I'm going to suggest now

[TheProfosist]

Usually better glass is found in the full frame mouth but if it's the exact same lens and you dont plan on upgrading any time soon I'd say go dx .