>>63093All I was curious about was whether you could back up your statement with a photo you actually took. For instance, I'd rather have 1:1 macro at all times in the woods because, along a similar line of thought, you can always make things smaller, but you can't make things bigger, but I rarely actually photograph flowers, and when I do, I usually do it from far enough away that I don't need all that magnification.
My question was about balancing practicality and essentialness. I can't carry all my lenses when backpacking because they're too heavy. My solution is to just bring one or two that can handle 90% of the photos I'd want to take. I've owned ultra wide angle lenses before, but I sold them because they were just not essential. Photos that look good with teeny tiny mountains in the background and a ton of sky and rocks in the foreground are few and far between. Also, to my eye, most photos I can take outdoors at 17mm look just as good at 28mm (I'm talking 35mm equivalent focal lengths). If I were photographing the inside of a building, I wouldn't say that, but that's just my opinion for outdoors photography.
