Yes, definitely.
And I don't see why it would be extreme, at all - just like veganism isn't. Reducing suffering whenever practicable is the opposite of extreme. It should be the norm.
In the very definition of veganism it's stated:
'A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose'
If eating certain plant-based foods kills a significant amount of animals, and it's replaceable (therefore possible and practicable) with something that would kill significantly less, then it definitely would be vegan to choose the latter option.
Take for example palm oil. Palm oil is plant-based, but far from being vegan considering what it does.
It's much worse than honey - and yet, honey is considered not OK, but palm oil OK in a vegan diet.
For reference:
wiki/index.php/Palm_Oil
Palm oil kills tens of thousands of animals high on the sentience scale, and harms humans significantly (both the natives living in the forests, and the hundreds of thousands of children that develop respiratory problems caused by the haze from burning down the forests) - not considering the environmental effect and the domino consequences it has.
And fortunately enough, palm oil is replaceable. There is a wide variety of vegetable oils that can substitute it.
That's an extreme case, though. It gets a bit trickier with something like which vegetable requires less land and less crop deaths, and it needs to be looked at for each context.
Unless it's egregiously high though, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Insects are barely sentient, and those represent most of the crop deaths. And at this point, it's pretty hard to quantify the crop deaths of eating a carrot vs a potato, and is likely not a significant difference.
It also would make veganism (something very impactful) something much harder to do, for a very little gain that's mostly unknown.
So advocating to eat only the vegetables that require the least amount of land/farming, would likely not do much good, and actually be counterproductive by increasing the barrier of entry/failure/recidivism of veganism - which would be a known problem, and certainly something to avoid. (e.g. if people already struggle to go and stay vegan, advocating for further restriction - for something likely insignificant - will make people struggle to go and stay vegan - something very impactful - even more)