For the a similar field of view, the new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens is actually less expensive than its DX counter part, the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX. Both cover roughly the same field of view and are at the bottom of the price range respectively in the DX and FX lineups, but the FX lens is priced just under $750 and the DX lens is $870. Surprised? I am, but not shocked. I think this further highlights how expensive Nikon's DX ultrawides are relative to the competition. The original 12-24 f/4 DX is more expensive still and lists for almost $1,100 USD.
This raises an interesting question: We all know that FX is more expensive than DX, but what is the current real-world price difference?