I don't think one can properly answer this question without talking about impact factors and the absolute, SHEER, arbitrary and artificially created perceived "value" they have.
I have never let a journal's impact factor determine where I was going to submit a manuscript. WHY you may ask? Because impact factors are not arbiters of excellence. If you think they are, you are sadly mistaken.
I've been in labs where one year we were in Nature Neuroscience, and literally a year or so later, when the lab provided a more thorough and complete analysis of the initial discovery we were told in short "this is nice work, but not good enough for us, go publish in a lower impact factor journal" Which we promptly did of course. However, we were all surprised at the outright rejection. We were given no review, a flat out rejection! After they liked us so much previously.
I tend to decide where a manuscript is going based on where it will get the best readership. What questions am I answering and who's my audience? Based on those criteria and the strength of my story, because a manuscript IS a story, I determine which would be good journals to submit to.
If anyone has questions regarding impact factors, please let me know, and I will be happy to supply you with literature.
"Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say why not"
"If you think research is expensive, try disease." - Mary Lasker