If it quacks like a duck...
Have you heard of The Duck Test, or so called Duck Typing?
The Duck Test is a type of abductive reasoning, and it works like this:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
...in other words the appearance and behavior of something determines what we say it is.
Now this may sound silly when it concerns something like waterfowl because one glance at it and we can say if it is a duck or a goose or something else that quacks, waddles and/or looks similar to a duck.
But in the case of something like photons, this becomes decisive, because when it comes to elementary particles it is near impossible to determine if it is a photon or anything else. I mean, have you ever seen an elementary particle and on first glance been able to say "Oh, that's a photon right there... not an electron or a neutrino or a neutron... that is a photon, I am certain by the looks of it"? No you have not, and neither has anyone else.
Phrased slightly differently you asked the question: "what can I have that behaves like a photon, but is not a photon?"
Well... you cannot. Because if it behaves exactly like a photon, then for all intents and purposes, it is a photon. And even if it was not actually a photon, there is no way we can say that it is not, so you might as well treat it exactly like you would a photon.
For all we know, "photon" might actually be two, ten, a thousand, or billions of different types elementary particles. But we cannot tell them apart, so we just say they are "photons", all of them.
In short: we define particles by their behavior, because truth be told: no-one knows what a photon or any other elementary particle actually is. We only know how it works and behaves. And so we say that anything that behaves like a photon, is a photon
So is there any other particle that can behave exactly like a photon while not being a photon? No, there is not.
Hence the question becomes: what other particle could produce something like vision? Well, probably none at all really.
Electrons... are out of the question because they do not go very far in any kind of atmosphere, and they are hard to emit.
Neutrinos... do not interact with (nearly) anything so even though they are more omnipresent than photons they are useless as vision.
Protons... is even worse than electrons because they are stopped very quickly by air. Also they are highly ionizing (i.e. the mechanism that makes radiation very harmful) so you do not want to try to use that.
Neutrons... are even worse because not only are they ionizing, they also transform atoms they hit into other elements, some of them very unstable, and therefore radioactive.
...and so on, down all of the list.
So in short: of all the known particles, none do the job of photons as well as photons themselves.
Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.
— Anton Chekhov
What do you need this alternate vision for? Is it something that is relevant to the story, or is it just a fun gimmick you are throwing into the story for the heck of it?
If so: do not do that. Do not throw in stuff that are not actually important for the setting, the flavor or the elements of the story. Readers will quickly see through that and recognize it as a bolt-on filler that does not actually add to the experience.
If you do need it for the story however, then you can make up anything you want. But then you need to make it behave different then photons, because if they radiate like photons, refract like photons, reflect like photons, and make you see like photons do... then they are photons.