OK, now we have something specific to talk about...
> 1st shot- 1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, focal length 55, Dimensions 2292x3486
There are a couple of challenges here. You're close to a small subject, and you've got a shallow depth of field (f 5.6). Basically you're trying to use your kit lens as a macro lens. The results you got are about what I'd expect in that situation. It's hard for a lens to focus very close like that.
2nd shot- 0.3", f22, ISO 200, focal length 34, Dimensions 2588x1601
Looks fine to me. It's a bit blurry but that happens when you photograph water.
3d shot- 1/160, f7.0, ISO 1600, focal length 50, Dimensions 3114x2022
Once again, you're pushing the lens to the limits trying to focus so close. The low light situation made you use ISO 1600, which created the grain. A challenging shot, and one that would probably take a special lens and additonal light.
There's a reason that you see that big selection of lens when you go into a camera store. No single lens can do it all, not even an expensive pro grade one.
Macro lenses are a great example. At a glance, they don't seem much different than a regular lens. Many photographers ask "A 105 macro? My lens is a 70-200, it has 105 in there, why would I need the macro?" Well, the 105 macro can acheive sharp focus close to the subject, a typical lens cannot.
As an example, take the Nikon's 70-200. Nikon tells you the minimum focusing distance right on the product page:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2185/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
For that lens, it's 4.6 feet. So Nikon is telling you that if you're trying to photograph something that's less than 4.6 feet away, this lens will NOT get good focus on it. That doesn't mean it's a cheap lens, (it's not!) it's simply part of how optics work.