... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.
That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.
The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.
4/3 has in no way delivered on the promise of smaller, lighter or better lenses. Neither has APS-C. We know it is not possible for tele lenses where size is determined solely by entrance pupil, not by image circle. But manufacturers have also failed to deliver on the wide-angle side.
I will wait for a sony RX1-sized body with FF sensor and a number of tiny, native flange distance FF-capable primes with AF. I expect these pancake fixed focals between 20 and 80mm to be similar in size and cost to the excellent EF 40/2.8. plus a series of faster, somewhat larger and significantly more expensive "L" lenses, which will deliver Leica-M class image quality minus manual focus mechanics - at about 50% of current Leica M lens prices.
And i also expect a more compact 24-70/4 with short flange-back as hi-IQ kit lens. Priced at less than 1k.
It will come. Sooner rather than later. DSLRs are on the way out.