I think in the context of this discussion my reference is to Canon’s mirrorless option and it’s direct competition all being 36mmx24mm full frame sensors.
None of the lenses you list were designed to cover anywhere near a full frame sensor and physics ductates fast, high quality lenses for FF will be big and heavy.
The problem, though, is with the physics of the design. Not physics itself. Yes, we were speaking about FF, but it is the design "type" that requires the lenses to be large. There were fast FF lenses in the 35mm (FF) film days that were much smaller because of the design "type". So saying that fast glass in a smaller package is
unobtainable (That is what you said, meaning "can't be done.) just is not true. With the current type? Maybe. Maybe lenses will be issued later that are fast, smaller, and lighter that are of a different design and still offer quality. What level of quality must they be anyway? Assuming that all FF users require L quality isn't true either. Just look at the EF line of non-L lenses. They are decent quality lenses and people use them on FF cameras, but not many are fast in the Canon line... not true with 3rd party.
I happen to like big heavy lenses. But I also use manual focus 40+ year old manual focus lenses that are small, light, and some are very good quality to my eyes. Let's face it, without MTF charts most people don't see much difference and most don't pixel peep.
Somebody will eventually come up with a really good formula that is FF, small and perfectly acceptable to most people.
I consider Canon's EF 50mm f/1.4 to be fast, small, light, and of good quality. Canon sells gobs. So, not unobtainable at all.